2024 Cowboys Thread. 3-3, I think. Players, coaches and FO don’t care - neither do I. (11 Viewers)

[Cowboysfan8]

This is a game where there are only like 10-12 really good guys each year, and if you have one, you gotta pay to play.

Agree

But I think Daks playoffs games give Dallas an out here. I think there’s a chance they let him walk

 

[Gatorade]

You are right, Dak could walk and would command a ton of money from one of those teams you named. The problem is - would that team be better for having Dak Prescott on it's roster (over a rookie QB?). These inflated quarterback salaries and some of the beneficiaries (lesser skilled quarterbacks) of these deals are going to dry up opportunities for above average to great, aging QB's to play the game. At the end of the day, if you know you aren't a top 2 quarterback in the league... why would you assume you should be paid like one? You are owed more money because the salary cap increased? That is lunacy...

Dak goes to one of those teams and his branding takes a hit, his legacy and skill take a hit, everything is lesser because he wanted to squeeze a few extra million out of this single contract... additionally, does he fade faster because he is on a worse team with lesser weapons and a worse offensive line? I just don't think any of those teams you named are a "Dak Prescott" away from a Super Bowl.

Getting beat up about a franchise tag at the QB position is ludicrous too. The guy was franchised and paid the average salary of a top 5 player at that position... quarterbacks are very protected in the NFL, likelihood of ending up with a career ending injury at the quarterback position seems pretty low.

I fully believe fighting for guaranteed money and a lesser contract is the best approach to negotiating a quarterback salary. Take a franchise tag and re-up with more guaranteed money every year. I would take less total money to have a fully guaranteed 4 to 5 year contract and still leave extra on the books to get me some weapons.

For the bolded, I would say the assumption is based upon what the market pays. If the market is paying guys $55M+ per year, and some of these guys are proven less than what Dak has accomplished, wouldn't the Devils Advocate argument basically be "I'm better than this guy, I'm more proven than this guy, therefore, I should be paid more than this guy"

Herbert has zero playoff wins. Lawrence has one (against Herbert lol). If I'm Dak, those guys' contracts are my floor starting point.

And again, if Dallas doesn't want to pay him, that is fine. He WILL reset the market if another team gets a chance at him in free agency. Simply supply and demand. I'd argue some of these teams might not be Super Bowl caliber *this/next* year, but once they feel they found their guy at QB, it makes a lot of the other stuff easier. Attracting high level WR talent, etc. By all accounts, Dak is a great leader. I think a lot of players would want to play for a guy that not only is a great leader but also "won" his contract negotiations, as silly as that is to type out, its definitely a thing.

That is fair and that is why I say it is possible for both you and @STEADYMOBBIN 22 to be right.

He will reset the QB market and likely be the highest paid QB in the NFL if he hits free agency but it is okay to disagree with the approach and question Dak Prescott during all of this. From a longevity standpoint, it makes more sense to take a discount. If I am interviewing for a position within a company and I say - "I want $___" and the employer says "If we pay you this, we will have to get rid of some of your assistants"... ultimately, making my job more difficult. Why would I still command the higher salary, knowing I will have to work harder to be successful?

I don't see the abundance of free agent WR's coming to Dallas to play with the world beater Dak Prescott.

He can be that guy from a contractual perspective but he isn't that guy. I think the Dallas Cowboys are coming to terms with that right now. I have been a pretty decent Dak supporter but I am good with him leaving, because I don't think Dak Prescott wins us a Super Bowl. That is the goal and I don't think we have the guy or the contract behind the guy that puts us in the best position to win.

I disagree with the idea that shoring up Quarterback at a very high cost allows you to put your head down and find talent in other positions is a great theory but if these GM's and scouts were so great at finding/evaluating talent - they would already be past the starting point of finding a QB. My stance, especially pertaining to Dak Prescott, he is a product of a great team. Pay a game manager like a top QB, erode the team around him and watch him struggle... seems like a recipe for losing.

Prob my last response on this but.

Imagine you have been at your job for 9 years, you are very efficient at your job. Won some minor awards even and have proven to be a leader and a winner. And then your company hires a new kid and within a few years you hear he/she/they already got a raise and is now making 1.5x your salary. Has no real proven track record, or leadership. Their team is an average team. How does that make you feel? At this point are you willing to "bite the bullet for the company" and take a salary BELOW what you feel your market value is, knowing someone else inferior to you is getting paid more? Or do you hardline negotiate and threaten to go to a headhunter where you know you can get your fair salary bc your current company seems...cheap.

And I just think we disagree on what the reality of the QB market is right now in the NFL. And that is fine. The salary cap is massively jumping every year at this point and players would be foolish (IMO) to take under market deals (even if they say "they don't play for money")

And like I said, it seems the grumblings mostly are toward Dak, but you gotta agree with me that the approach the Cowboys have taken to both contract negotiations as well as roster building - mainly the fact they avoid making major trades as well as signing big name free agents - is a bit dated. My take is "yes" the Cowboys DO draft exceptionally well, but if you aren't locking in that talent asap to good deals early and refuse to basically sign any premium outside talent, it kind of cancels out this benefit of drafting so well.

Anyway, I still think the Cowboys win 9-11 games this year, but if the Dak era really is over after this year, you guys could truly go anywhere from 3-10 years until you find a bonafide quality starter at the position again. Best of luck!

Who on the Cowboys is making 1.5X what Dak is making. Maybe someone at another "company" team is making that. How do you know that the other company will pay you that. And is it worth uprooting your family and life to move to this company.
It worked out good for Kirk Cousins, but did Minnesota win any more playoff games with Cousins.

 

[Terpman22]

You are right, Dak could walk and would command a ton of money from one of those teams you named. The problem is - would that team be better for having Dak Prescott on it's roster (over a rookie QB?). These inflated quarterback salaries and some of the beneficiaries (lesser skilled quarterbacks) of these deals are going to dry up opportunities for above average to great, aging QB's to play the game. At the end of the day, if you know you aren't a top 2 quarterback in the league... why would you assume you should be paid like one? You are owed more money because the salary cap increased? That is lunacy...

Dak goes to one of those teams and his branding takes a hit, his legacy and skill take a hit, everything is lesser because he wanted to squeeze a few extra million out of this single contract... additionally, does he fade faster because he is on a worse team with lesser weapons and a worse offensive line? I just don't think any of those teams you named are a "Dak Prescott" away from a Super Bowl.

Getting beat up about a franchise tag at the QB position is ludicrous too. The guy was franchised and paid the average salary of a top 5 player at that position... quarterbacks are very protected in the NFL, likelihood of ending up with a career ending injury at the quarterback position seems pretty low.

I fully believe fighting for guaranteed money and a lesser contract is the best approach to negotiating a quarterback salary. Take a franchise tag and re-up with more guaranteed money every year. I would take less total money to have a fully guaranteed 4 to 5 year contract and still leave extra on the books to get me some weapons.

For the bolded, I would say the assumption is based upon what the market pays. If the market is paying guys $55M+ per year, and some of these guys are proven less than what Dak has accomplished, wouldn't the Devils Advocate argument basically be "I'm better than this guy, I'm more proven than this guy, therefore, I should be paid more than this guy"

Herbert has zero playoff wins. Lawrence has one (against Herbert lol). If I'm Dak, those guys' contracts are my floor starting point.

And again, if Dallas doesn't want to pay him, that is fine. He WILL reset the market if another team gets a chance at him in free agency. Simply supply and demand. I'd argue some of these teams might not be Super Bowl caliber *this/next* year, but once they feel they found their guy at QB, it makes a lot of the other stuff easier. Attracting high level WR talent, etc. By all accounts, Dak is a great leader. I think a lot of players would want to play for a guy that not only is a great leader but also "won" his contract negotiations, as silly as that is to type out, its definitely a thing.

That is fair and that is why I say it is possible for both you and @STEADYMOBBIN 22 to be right.

He will reset the QB market and likely be the highest paid QB in the NFL if he hits free agency but it is okay to disagree with the approach and question Dak Prescott during all of this. From a longevity standpoint, it makes more sense to take a discount. If I am interviewing for a position within a company and I say - "I want $___" and the employer says "If we pay you this, we will have to get rid of some of your assistants"... ultimately, making my job more difficult. Why would I still command the higher salary, knowing I will have to work harder to be successful?

I don't see the abundance of free agent WR's coming to Dallas to play with the world beater Dak Prescott.

He can be that guy from a contractual perspective but he isn't that guy. I think the Dallas Cowboys are coming to terms with that right now. I have been a pretty decent Dak supporter but I am good with him leaving, because I don't think Dak Prescott wins us a Super Bowl. That is the goal and I don't think we have the guy or the contract behind the guy that puts us in the best position to win.

I disagree with the idea that shoring up Quarterback at a very high cost allows you to put your head down and find talent in other positions is a great theory but if these GM's and scouts were so great at finding/evaluating talent - they would already be past the starting point of finding a QB. My stance, especially pertaining to Dak Prescott, he is a product of a great team. Pay a game manager like a top QB, erode the team around him and watch him struggle... seems like a recipe for losing.

Prob my last response on this but.

Imagine you have been at your job for 9 years, you are very efficient at your job. Won some minor awards even and have proven to be a leader and a winner. And then your company hires a new kid and within a few years you hear he/she/they already got a raise and is now making 1.5x your salary. Has no real proven track record, or leadership. Their team is an average team. How does that make you feel? At this point are you willing to "bite the bullet for the company" and take a salary BELOW what you feel your market value is, knowing someone else inferior to you is getting paid more? Or do you hardline negotiate and threaten to go to a headhunter where you know you can get your fair salary bc your current company seems...cheap.

And I just think we disagree on what the reality of the QB market is right now in the NFL. And that is fine. The salary cap is massively jumping every year at this point and players would be foolish (IMO) to take under market deals (even if they say "they don't play for money")

And like I said, it seems the grumblings mostly are toward Dak, but you gotta agree with me that the approach the Cowboys have taken to both contract negotiations as well as roster building - mainly the fact they avoid making major trades as well as signing big name free agents - is a bit dated. My take is "yes" the Cowboys DO draft exceptionally well, but if you aren't locking in that talent asap to good deals early and refuse to basically sign any premium outside talent, it kind of cancels out this benefit of drafting so well.

Anyway, I still think the Cowboys win 9-11 games this year, but if the Dak era really is over after this year, you guys could truly go anywhere from 3-10 years until you find a bonafide quality starter at the position again. Best of luck!

Who on the Cowboys is making 1.5X what Dak is making. Maybe someone at another "company" team is making that. How do you know that the other company will pay you that. And is it worth uprooting your family and life to move to this company.
It worked out good for Kirk Cousins, but did Minnesota win any more playoff games with Cousins.

The company in this scenario is the NFL. Split into 32 teams. You see the leader of another team, an inferior team with less proven ability. Of course, in this same scenario, you aren't "switching companies" but knowing the market for your ability and the fact that you and most of the company view you as a top 10 guy within the company at your position, you may just go to a new team to get your fair market value. Bc you have seen it done before and from experience, you know how it all works.

Hope that helps.

 

[TVT 0 N S T A]

@Terpman22

It becomes easier to find that QB if you have a decent team around him. It allows you to pick a quarterback in the 4th round, propel him into #2 in MVP voting, because you have built that team around him. I am sure many of you have found yourselves having the - "If ________ was drafted by any team other than ______, I think he would still be in the league and a top 15 quarterback".

The list of busts is endless, but the more quarterbacks that bust for specific teams, the more I believe it is the system and not the players. I have the same feeling about Justin Fields and Caleb Williams. If Fields was given 3 bonafide stud WR's and a top 15 RB, maybe things would have been different? Maybe reaching for a quarterback and not taking a LT isn't the move?

I am to the point where, if Dak is willing to be traded... I call up New Orleans and see if I can get Spencer Rattler + some picks. This might sound like the craziest rant I've ever been on in this board but... I think Rattler steps in and the Cowboys don't get worse. I don't necessarily think they get better either but that is my point - Dak Prescott is a system QB with guys around him but wants to be paid like a world beater. When the smoke settles and you have to let players walk because you paid Dak too much, the clock strikes midnight and Dak turns back into a pumpkin.

All that to say, I like Dak Prescott. I do. I just don't' like him at the price, regardless of what the market tells me.

I really didn't want to get into the marketability of the Dallas Cowboys and how much that means in sponsorship dollars but I think this is a fair time to bring that up. I hate to play that card, but the avenues that open up for a Dallas Cowboys QB (sponsorship deals, broadcasting contracts, etc.) The point of the last couple sentences is to say - entering free agency and getting the one big contract could cost Dak Prescott some money in the future.

 

[jm192]

You are right, Dak could walk and would command a ton of money from one of those teams you named. The problem is - would that team be better for having Dak Prescott on it's roster (over a rookie QB?). These inflated quarterback salaries and some of the beneficiaries (lesser skilled quarterbacks) of these deals are going to dry up opportunities for above average to great, aging QB's to play the game. At the end of the day, if you know you aren't a top 2 quarterback in the league... why would you assume you should be paid like one? You are owed more money because the salary cap increased? That is lunacy...

Dak goes to one of those teams and his branding takes a hit, his legacy and skill take a hit, everything is lesser because he wanted to squeeze a few extra million out of this single contract... additionally, does he fade faster because he is on a worse team with lesser weapons and a worse offensive line? I just don't think any of those teams you named are a "Dak Prescott" away from a Super Bowl.

Getting beat up about a franchise tag at the QB position is ludicrous too. The guy was franchised and paid the average salary of a top 5 player at that position... quarterbacks are very protected in the NFL, likelihood of ending up with a career ending injury at the quarterback position seems pretty low.

I fully believe fighting for guaranteed money and a lesser contract is the best approach to negotiating a quarterback salary. Take a franchise tag and re-up with more guaranteed money every year. I would take less total money to have a fully guaranteed 4 to 5 year contract and still leave extra on the books to get me some weapons.

For the bolded, I would say the assumption is based upon what the market pays. If the market is paying guys $55M+ per year, and some of these guys are proven less than what Dak has accomplished, wouldn't the Devils Advocate argument basically be "I'm better than this guy, I'm more proven than this guy, therefore, I should be paid more than this guy"

Herbert has zero playoff wins. Lawrence has one (against Herbert lol). If I'm Dak, those guys' contracts are my floor starting point.

And again, if Dallas doesn't want to pay him, that is fine. He WILL reset the market if another team gets a chance at him in free agency. Simply supply and demand. I'd argue some of these teams might not be Super Bowl caliber *this/next* year, but once they feel they found their guy at QB, it makes a lot of the other stuff easier. Attracting high level WR talent, etc. By all accounts, Dak is a great leader. I think a lot of players would want to play for a guy that not only is a great leader but also "won" his contract negotiations, as silly as that is to type out, its definitely a thing.

That is fair and that is why I say it is possible for both you and @STEADYMOBBIN 22 to be right.

He will reset the QB market and likely be the highest paid QB in the NFL if he hits free agency but it is okay to disagree with the approach and question Dak Prescott during all of this. From a longevity standpoint, it makes more sense to take a discount. If I am interviewing for a position within a company and I say - "I want $___" and the employer says "If we pay you this, we will have to get rid of some of your assistants"... ultimately, making my job more difficult. Why would I still command the higher salary, knowing I will have to work harder to be successful?

I don't see the abundance of free agent WR's coming to Dallas to play with the world beater Dak Prescott.

He can be that guy from a contractual perspective but he isn't that guy. I think the Dallas Cowboys are coming to terms with that right now. I have been a pretty decent Dak supporter but I am good with him leaving, because I don't think Dak Prescott wins us a Super Bowl. That is the goal and I don't think we have the guy or the contract behind the guy that puts us in the best position to win.

I disagree with the idea that shoring up Quarterback at a very high cost allows you to put your head down and find talent in other positions is a great theory but if these GM's and scouts were so great at finding/evaluating talent - they would already be past the starting point of finding a QB. My stance, especially pertaining to Dak Prescott, he is a product of a great team. Pay a game manager like a top QB, erode the team around him and watch him struggle... seems like a recipe for losing.

Prob my last response on this but.

Imagine you have been at your job for 9 years, you are very efficient at your job. Won some minor awards even and have proven to be a leader and a winner. And then your company hires a new kid and within a few years you hear he/she/they already got a raise and is now making 1.5x your salary. Has no real proven track record, or leadership. Their team is an average team. How does that make you feel? At this point are you willing to "bite the bullet for the company" and take a salary BELOW what you feel your market value is, knowing someone else inferior to you is getting paid more? Or do you hardline negotiate and threaten to go to a headhunter where you know you can get your fair salary bc your current company seems...cheap.

And I just think we disagree on what the reality of the QB market is right now in the NFL. And that is fine. The salary cap is massively jumping every year at this point and players would be foolish (IMO) to take under market deals (even if they say "they don't play for money")

And like I said, it seems the grumblings mostly are toward Dak, but you gotta agree with me that the approach the Cowboys have taken to both contract negotiations as well as roster building - mainly the fact they avoid making major trades as well as signing big name free agents - is a bit dated. My take is "yes" the Cowboys DO draft exceptionally well, but if you aren't locking in that talent asap to good deals early and refuse to basically sign any premium outside talent, it kind of cancels out this benefit of drafting so well.

Anyway, I still think the Cowboys win 9-11 games this year, but if the Dak era really is over after this year, you guys could truly go anywhere from 3-10 years until you find a bonafide quality starter at the position again. Best of luck!

Who on the Cowboys is making 1.5X what Dak is making. Maybe someone at another "company" team is making that. How do you know that the other company will pay you that. And is it worth uprooting your family and life to move to this company.
It worked out good for Kirk Cousins, but did Minnesota win any more playoff games with Cousins.

I think we unfairly pin the playoff failures on the Quarterback. It's a nice notion that an elite Quarterback should overcome other shortcomings. Or if only the QB had played better.
When the Vikings lost to the Giants, Cousins threw 31/39 for 273 yards and 2 TD's, ran another TD in, and had zero turnovers. He led the offense to 24 points. The defense gave up 31 points.


On a bigger scale:
Patrick Mahommes is 15-3. That's the gold standard.
Aaron Rodgers has the 2nd most wins, but is 11-10 (in spite of a Super Bowl run).
Flacco is 10-6.
Russel Wilson is 9-7 with a super bowl run.
Burrow is 5-2 with a super bowl loss.

And you're gonna say: But all those dudes have winning records, Dak and Cousin's don't!
Josh Allen is 5-5
Goff is 4-4
Stafford is 4-4 despite a super bowl run.
Hurts is 2-3
Lamar Jackson is 2-4.
Cousins is a 1-3 (1-4 if you count the game he came in from the bench for RG3).
Dak 2-5.

This notion that: Let's get rid of Dak and get a guy who WINS in the playoffs seems flawed. Rodgers, Flacco, Wilson all seem to have taken a step back from their prime. So you've got Mahommes and Burrow in the winning column. You've got Allen, Goff, Stafford at .500. Lawerence is .500 but doesn't get a loss after missing last season's playoffs.

I think we have to realize that there's more to the playoff wins/losses than Quarterback play. And while it's great to say get rid of him and replace him with a winner--there aren't that many of them to begin with. You're certianly not going to acquire Mahomes or Burrow. I think Dak is competent enough to win with a good NFL team. And you're going to have to pay for guys that can say that.

 

[Instinctive]

You are right, Dak could walk and would command a ton of money from one of those teams you named. The problem is - would that team be better for having Dak Prescott on it's roster (over a rookie QB?). These inflated quarterback salaries and some of the beneficiaries (lesser skilled quarterbacks) of these deals are going to dry up opportunities for above average to great, aging QB's to play the game. At the end of the day, if you know you aren't a top 2 quarterback in the league... why would you assume you should be paid like one? You are owed more money because the salary cap increased? That is lunacy...

Dak goes to one of those teams and his branding takes a hit, his legacy and skill take a hit, everything is lesser because he wanted to squeeze a few extra million out of this single contract... additionally, does he fade faster because he is on a worse team with lesser weapons and a worse offensive line? I just don't think any of those teams you named are a "Dak Prescott" away from a Super Bowl.

Getting beat up about a franchise tag at the QB position is ludicrous too. The guy was franchised and paid the average salary of a top 5 player at that position... quarterbacks are very protected in the NFL, likelihood of ending up with a career ending injury at the quarterback position seems pretty low.

I fully believe fighting for guaranteed money and a lesser contract is the best approach to negotiating a quarterback salary. Take a franchise tag and re-up with more guaranteed money every year. I would take less total money to have a fully guaranteed 4 to 5 year contract and still leave extra on the books to get me some weapons.

For the bolded, I would say the assumption is based upon what the market pays. If the market is paying guys $55M+ per year, and some of these guys are proven less than what Dak has accomplished, wouldn't the Devils Advocate argument basically be "I'm better than this guy, I'm more proven than this guy, therefore, I should be paid more than this guy"

Herbert has zero playoff wins. Lawrence has one (against Herbert lol). If I'm Dak, those guys' contracts are my floor starting point.

And again, if Dallas doesn't want to pay him, that is fine. He WILL reset the market if another team gets a chance at him in free agency. Simply supply and demand. I'd argue some of these teams might not be Super Bowl caliber *this/next* year, but once they feel they found their guy at QB, it makes a lot of the other stuff easier. Attracting high level WR talent, etc. By all accounts, Dak is a great leader. I think a lot of players would want to play for a guy that not only is a great leader but also "won" his contract negotiations, as silly as that is to type out, its definitely a thing.

That is fair and that is why I say it is possible for both you and @STEADYMOBBIN 22 to be right.

He will reset the QB market and likely be the highest paid QB in the NFL if he hits free agency but it is okay to disagree with the approach and question Dak Prescott during all of this. From a longevity standpoint, it makes more sense to take a discount. If I am interviewing for a position within a company and I say - "I want $___" and the employer says "If we pay you this, we will have to get rid of some of your assistants"... ultimately, making my job more difficult. Why would I still command the higher salary, knowing I will have to work harder to be successful?

I don't see the abundance of free agent WR's coming to Dallas to play with the world beater Dak Prescott.

He can be that guy from a contractual perspective but he isn't that guy. I think the Dallas Cowboys are coming to terms with that right now. I have been a pretty decent Dak supporter but I am good with him leaving, because I don't think Dak Prescott wins us a Super Bowl. That is the goal and I don't think we have the guy or the contract behind the guy that puts us in the best position to win.

I disagree with the idea that shoring up Quarterback at a very high cost allows you to put your head down and find talent in other positions is a great theory but if these GM's and scouts were so great at finding/evaluating talent - they would already be past the starting point of finding a QB. My stance, especially pertaining to Dak Prescott, he is a product of a great team. Pay a game manager like a top QB, erode the team around him and watch him struggle... seems like a recipe for losing.

Prob my last response on this but.

Imagine you have been at your job for 9 years, you are very efficient at your job. Won some minor awards even and have proven to be a leader and a winner. And then your company hires a new kid and within a few years you hear he/she/they already got a raise and is now making 1.5x your salary. Has no real proven track record, or leadership. Their team is an average team. How does that make you feel? At this point are you willing to "bite the bullet for the company" and take a salary BELOW what you feel your market value is, knowing someone else inferior to you is getting paid more? Or do you hardline negotiate and threaten to go to a headhunter where you know you can get your fair salary bc your current company seems...cheap.

And I just think we disagree on what the reality of the QB market is right now in the NFL. And that is fine. The salary cap is massively jumping every year at this point and players would be foolish (IMO) to take under market deals (even if they say "they don't play for money")

And like I said, it seems the grumblings mostly are toward Dak, but you gotta agree with me that the approach the Cowboys have taken to both contract negotiations as well as roster building - mainly the fact they avoid making major trades as well as signing big name free agents - is a bit dated. My take is "yes" the Cowboys DO draft exceptionally well, but if you aren't locking in that talent asap to good deals early and refuse to basically sign any premium outside talent, it kind of cancels out this benefit of drafting so well.

Anyway, I still think the Cowboys win 9-11 games this year, but if the Dak era really is over after this year, you guys could truly go anywhere from 3-10 years until you find a bonafide quality starter at the position again. Best of luck!

Who on the Cowboys is making 1.5X what Dak is making. Maybe someone at another "company" team is making that. How do you know that the other company will pay you that. And is it worth uprooting your family and life to move to this company.
It worked out good for Kirk Cousins, but did Minnesota win any more playoff games with Cousins.

The company in this scenario is the NFL. Split into 32 teams. You see the leader of another team, an inferior team with less proven ability. Of course, in this same scenario, you aren't "switching companies" but knowing the market for your ability and the fact that you and most of the company view you as a top 10 guy within the company at your position, you may just go to a new team to get your fair market value. Bc you have seen it done before and from experience, you know how it all works.

Hope that helps.

I like the attempt but this is a bad analogy.

A better one would be like you're the COO of Coke, and you're among the 10 highest paid COOs in America. But the COO of Pepsi makes more money, even though you do a better job. Of course, over at Pepsi, he has to work 80 hour weeks and you're cruising at 60, you have a great team of ex-MBB consultants and a couple auto industry guys, a phenomenal VP of Procurement, a great group of Supply Chain folks. Pepsi's team is similar, maybe not quite as good, and that's why that guy cranks 20 extra hours per week.

You know if you leave Coke you can get an offer from Keurig Dr Pepper for more than what the Pepsi guy makes. But their team is the worst of the three, and you probably will either need to put in 100 hours a week, or you'll fail and nobody will hire you as a COO again.

That's a far better analogy.

Hope that helps.

 

[TVT 0 N S T A]

@Instinctive

Well done, sir! Yes, that is what I meant. The situations aren't the same. Similar, in the fact that you're still playing football but world's apart.

 

[Terpman22]

You are right, Dak could walk and would command a ton of money from one of those teams you named. The problem is - would that team be better for having Dak Prescott on it's roster (over a rookie QB?). These inflated quarterback salaries and some of the beneficiaries (lesser skilled quarterbacks) of these deals are going to dry up opportunities for above average to great, aging QB's to play the game. At the end of the day, if you know you aren't a top 2 quarterback in the league... why would you assume you should be paid like one? You are owed more money because the salary cap increased? That is lunacy...

Dak goes to one of those teams and his branding takes a hit, his legacy and skill take a hit, everything is lesser because he wanted to squeeze a few extra million out of this single contract... additionally, does he fade faster because he is on a worse team with lesser weapons and a worse offensive line? I just don't think any of those teams you named are a "Dak Prescott" away from a Super Bowl.

Getting beat up about a franchise tag at the QB position is ludicrous too. The guy was franchised and paid the average salary of a top 5 player at that position... quarterbacks are very protected in the NFL, likelihood of ending up with a career ending injury at the quarterback position seems pretty low.

I fully believe fighting for guaranteed money and a lesser contract is the best approach to negotiating a quarterback salary. Take a franchise tag and re-up with more guaranteed money every year. I would take less total money to have a fully guaranteed 4 to 5 year contract and still leave extra on the books to get me some weapons.

For the bolded, I would say the assumption is based upon what the market pays. If the market is paying guys $55M+ per year, and some of these guys are proven less than what Dak has accomplished, wouldn't the Devils Advocate argument basically be "I'm better than this guy, I'm more proven than this guy, therefore, I should be paid more than this guy"

Herbert has zero playoff wins. Lawrence has one (against Herbert lol). If I'm Dak, those guys' contracts are my floor starting point.

And again, if Dallas doesn't want to pay him, that is fine. He WILL reset the market if another team gets a chance at him in free agency. Simply supply and demand. I'd argue some of these teams might not be Super Bowl caliber *this/next* year, but once they feel they found their guy at QB, it makes a lot of the other stuff easier. Attracting high level WR talent, etc. By all accounts, Dak is a great leader. I think a lot of players would want to play for a guy that not only is a great leader but also "won" his contract negotiations, as silly as that is to type out, its definitely a thing.

That is fair and that is why I say it is possible for both you and @STEADYMOBBIN 22 to be right.

He will reset the QB market and likely be the highest paid QB in the NFL if he hits free agency but it is okay to disagree with the approach and question Dak Prescott during all of this. From a longevity standpoint, it makes more sense to take a discount. If I am interviewing for a position within a company and I say - "I want $___" and the employer says "If we pay you this, we will have to get rid of some of your assistants"... ultimately, making my job more difficult. Why would I still command the higher salary, knowing I will have to work harder to be successful?

I don't see the abundance of free agent WR's coming to Dallas to play with the world beater Dak Prescott.

He can be that guy from a contractual perspective but he isn't that guy. I think the Dallas Cowboys are coming to terms with that right now. I have been a pretty decent Dak supporter but I am good with him leaving, because I don't think Dak Prescott wins us a Super Bowl. That is the goal and I don't think we have the guy or the contract behind the guy that puts us in the best position to win.

I disagree with the idea that shoring up Quarterback at a very high cost allows you to put your head down and find talent in other positions is a great theory but if these GM's and scouts were so great at finding/evaluating talent - they would already be past the starting point of finding a QB. My stance, especially pertaining to Dak Prescott, he is a product of a great team. Pay a game manager like a top QB, erode the team around him and watch him struggle... seems like a recipe for losing.

Prob my last response on this but.

Imagine you have been at your job for 9 years, you are very efficient at your job. Won some minor awards even and have proven to be a leader and a winner. And then your company hires a new kid and within a few years you hear he/she/they already got a raise and is now making 1.5x your salary. Has no real proven track record, or leadership. Their team is an average team. How does that make you feel? At this point are you willing to "bite the bullet for the company" and take a salary BELOW what you feel your market value is, knowing someone else inferior to you is getting paid more? Or do you hardline negotiate and threaten to go to a headhunter where you know you can get your fair salary bc your current company seems...cheap.

And I just think we disagree on what the reality of the QB market is right now in the NFL. And that is fine. The salary cap is massively jumping every year at this point and players would be foolish (IMO) to take under market deals (even if they say "they don't play for money")

And like I said, it seems the grumblings mostly are toward Dak, but you gotta agree with me that the approach the Cowboys have taken to both contract negotiations as well as roster building - mainly the fact they avoid making major trades as well as signing big name free agents - is a bit dated. My take is "yes" the Cowboys DO draft exceptionally well, but if you aren't locking in that talent asap to good deals early and refuse to basically sign any premium outside talent, it kind of cancels out this benefit of drafting so well.

Anyway, I still think the Cowboys win 9-11 games this year, but if the Dak era really is over after this year, you guys could truly go anywhere from 3-10 years until you find a bonafide quality starter at the position again. Best of luck!

Who on the Cowboys is making 1.5X what Dak is making. Maybe someone at another "company" team is making that. How do you know that the other company will pay you that. And is it worth uprooting your family and life to move to this company.
It worked out good for Kirk Cousins, but did Minnesota win any more playoff games with Cousins.

The company in this scenario is the NFL. Split into 32 teams. You see the leader of another team, an inferior team with less proven ability. Of course, in this same scenario, you aren't "switching companies" but knowing the market for your ability and the fact that you and most of the company view you as a top 10 guy within the company at your position, you may just go to a new team to get your fair market value. Bc you have seen it done before and from experience, you know how it all works.

Hope that helps.

I like the attempt but this is a bad analogy.

A better one would be like you're the COO of Coke, and you're among the 10 highest paid COOs in America. But the COO of Pepsi makes more money, even though you do a better job. Of course, over at Pepsi, he has to work 80 hour weeks and you're cruising at 60, you have a great team of ex-MBB consultants and a couple auto industry guys, a phenomenal VP of Procurement, a great group of Supply Chain folks. Pepsi's team is similar, maybe not quite as good, and that's why that guy cranks 20 extra hours per week.

You know if you leave Coke you can get an offer from Keurig Dr Pepper for more than what the Pepsi guy makes. But their team is the worst of the three, and you probably will either need to put in 100 hours a week, or you'll fail and nobody will hire you as a COO again.

That's a far better analogy.

Hope that helps.

Sure, whatever floats your boat. The real point is Will Dak sign an extension with the Cowboys or not, and if he does, will it "be at a discount" or "market value"

Analogies be damned. Maybe yours is better, but if you think Dak "should sign a discounted contract" when he has all the leverage to *not* have to do that, we just disagree on the level of poker play this truly is. He's got a winning hand, and will be paid by Dallas or the next team at the $56-$60M/per year level. Thats just the fact.

 

[Instinctive]

Who on the Cowboys is making 1.5X what Dak is making. Maybe someone at another "company" team is making that. How do you know that the other company will pay you that. And is it worth uprooting your family and life to move to this company.
It worked out good for Kirk Cousins, but did Minnesota win any more playoff games with Cousins.

The company in this scenario is the NFL. Split into 32 teams. You see the leader of another team, an inferior team with less proven ability. Of course, in this same scenario, you aren't "switching companies" but knowing the market for your ability and the fact that you and most of the company view you as a top 10 guy within the company at your position, you may just go to a new team to get your fair market value. Bc you have seen it done before and from experience, you know how it all works.

Hope that helps.

I like the attempt but this is a bad analogy.

A better one would be like you're the COO of Coke, and you're among the 10 highest paid COOs in America. But the COO of Pepsi makes more money, even though you do a better job. Of course, over at Pepsi, he has to work 80 hour weeks and you're cruising at 60, you have a great team of ex-MBB consultants and a couple auto industry guys, a phenomenal VP of Procurement, a great group of Supply Chain folks. Pepsi's team is similar, maybe not quite as good, and that's why that guy cranks 20 extra hours per week.

You know if you leave Coke you can get an offer from Keurig Dr Pepper for more than what the Pepsi guy makes. But their team is the worst of the three, and you probably will either need to put in 100 hours a week, or you'll fail and nobody will hire you as a COO again.

That's a far better analogy.

Hope that helps.

Sure, whatever floats your boat. The real point is Will Dak sign an extension with the Cowboys or not, and if he does, will it "be at a discount" or "market value"

Analogies be damned. Maybe yours is better, but if you think Dak "should sign a discounted contract" when he has all the leverage to *not* have to do that, we just disagree on the level of poker play this truly is. He's got a winning hand, and will be paid by Dallas or the next team at the $56-$60M/per year level. Thats just the fact.

I didn't say what I think at all. Also "whatever floats your boat" and "an analogies be damned" - maybe you already know, but comes off as pretty combative and rude for a guy who literally a couple posts above is trying to use an analogy to explain the situation.

It depends on what the guy wants. Were I in his shoes, with already enough money for generational wealth coming regardless, I'd be more focused on winning. I'm more like Dirk than I am like LeBron in my approach to contracts and winning.

The analogy is actually about the point that is is in fact possible he signs some amazing deal for $60M somewhere, then because he doesn't have as much support many more flaws get revealed, and his career is many years shorter or he is unhappier. Look at Russell Wilson!

I always try to maximize my happiness. With $40+M coming in per year, I don't get much marginal benefit from $15-20M more. I do get a lot of marginal benefit from things like winning, or not having to work as hard, and having fun and success.

Not everyone thinks that way. That's ok, nobody is required to. But it is one more reason my reaction is like "Cool, go get $60M elsewhere. You're not remotely good enough to win at that price and the way it hurts team building around you."

 

[Snotbubbles]

Once again we conveniently forget all the events that transpired to get us here. Just like Prescott, you guys can pretend like he didnt hold the team ransom to get more than he was worth his last go around and now that hes paid and underperformed, he wants to act like it never happened.

Nobody is a calling him greedy, Were calling him disingenuous

I'm fuzzy on this. Held the team hostage?

I was wrong. Dak did everything that was in the best interest of team success.

Hes a benevolent soul who deserves everything that he gets.

I think the "Tom Brady took discounts to help team" thing really skewed people's views on what a player is supposed to do when they sign a contract extension and that is....get every single penny they can, especially in violent sport like football. I'm sure its not lost on Dak that his predecessor basically stopped playing because of injuries.

Its the GM, and in this case GM/Owner's job to put together the best roster, with the best prices and negotiate, in the team's perspective, the best deals.

I'll beat this drum for as long as possible, but the Jones' way of "lets wait until the last minute to get a deal/extension" while every single other team for the most part tries to get one done ASAP definitely hamstrings both their ability to get a team friendly deal as well as construct the best roster possible. Add in the cheapness they show with spending on free agents and the risk averse nature they have displayed to *not* make big trades to improve their roster basically gets the franchise where they are right now.

Hypothetically speaking - they let Dak walk, Lance turns out to continue to be a bust, then what? The Cowboys roster is both good enough to get 6-9 wins with Trey Lance and not as bad enough to get the top 1-3 pick required to draft a new franchise QB. Do you guys actually see Jerry making a BIG move to move up from say pick 7-15 range into the top 2 to lock whoever the new flavor might be in 2026-2027? I personally do not.

You can talk about Brady, Jerry, Trey Lance, draft picks, hamstrings, and drums all day. None of that has anything to do with Prescott asking for everything he could get and now pretending like that never happened and saying that he would play for free.

He wants to be paid like a top tier QB but doesn’t produce like one.

Dak Prescott has performed like a top tier QB. He just doesn't get it done in the playoffs. Guy had 4500 yards, 36 TDs, 9 INTs and finished 2nd in MVP voting, was a 2nd team All-Pro and made the Pro Bowl. That's top tier.

I can't believe I'm here defending Dak Prescott, damn you @STEADYMOBBIN 22.

 

[Terpman22]

Who on the Cowboys is making 1.5X what Dak is making. Maybe someone at another "company" team is making that. How do you know that the other company will pay you that. And is it worth uprooting your family and life to move to this company.
It worked out good for Kirk Cousins, but did Minnesota win any more playoff games with Cousins.

The company in this scenario is the NFL. Split into 32 teams. You see the leader of another team, an inferior team with less proven ability. Of course, in this same scenario, you aren't "switching companies" but knowing the market for your ability and the fact that you and most of the company view you as a top 10 guy within the company at your position, you may just go to a new team to get your fair market value. Bc you have seen it done before and from experience, you know how it all works.

Hope that helps.

I like the attempt but this is a bad analogy.

A better one would be like you're the COO of Coke, and you're among the 10 highest paid COOs in America. But the COO of Pepsi makes more money, even though you do a better job. Of course, over at Pepsi, he has to work 80 hour weeks and you're cruising at 60, you have a great team of ex-MBB consultants and a couple auto industry guys, a phenomenal VP of Procurement, a great group of Supply Chain folks. Pepsi's team is similar, maybe not quite as good, and that's why that guy cranks 20 extra hours per week.

You know if you leave Coke you can get an offer from Keurig Dr Pepper for more than what the Pepsi guy makes. But their team is the worst of the three, and you probably will either need to put in 100 hours a week, or you'll fail and nobody will hire you as a COO again.

That's a far better analogy.

Hope that helps.

Sure, whatever floats your boat. The real point is Will Dak sign an extension with the Cowboys or not, and if he does, will it "be at a discount" or "market value"

Analogies be damned. Maybe yours is better, but if you think Dak "should sign a discounted contract" when he has all the leverage to *not* have to do that, we just disagree on the level of poker play this truly is. He's got a winning hand, and will be paid by Dallas or the next team at the $56-$60M/per year level. Thats just the fact.

I didn't say what I think at all. Also "whatever floats your boat" and "an analogies be damned" - maybe you already know, but comes off as pretty combative and rude for a guy who literally a couple posts above is trying to use an analogy to explain the situation.

It depends on what the guy wants. Were I in his shoes, with already enough money for generational wealth coming regardless, I'd be more focused on winning. I'm more like Dirk than I am like LeBron in my approach to contracts and winning.

The analogy is actually about the point that is is in fact possible he signs some amazing deal for $60M somewhere, then because he doesn't have as much support many more flaws get revealed, and his career is many years shorter or he is unhappier. Look at Russell Wilson!

I always try to maximize my happiness. With $40+M coming in per year, I don't get much marginal benefit from $15-20M more. I do get a lot of marginal benefit from things like winning, or not having to work as hard, and having fun and success.

Not everyone thinks that way. That's ok, nobody is required to. But it is one more reason my reaction is like "Cool, go get $60M elsewhere. You're not remotely good enough to win at that price and the way it hurts team building around you."

Not trying to be rude, its just kind of wild how so many people don't understand how this works. Per the bolded, its hard to put ourselves in these guys shoes, b/c none of us are rich already like this. There are other factors that go into it, like for instance, a lot of us don't either realize or accept the fact that a lot of pro athletes actually don't even like the sport they play, at least not nearly as much as us fans do. They figured out they can get this said generational wealth b/c they happen to be very very good at this particular job. Another factor is "pride" that I feel most fans don't factor in as well. Not saying 100% this stuff applies to Dak, but I'm sure the pride factor does. Not to mention how the Cowboys and Jerry Jones has treated Dak. Pretty much every other top tier franchise QB doesn't have to play his rookie contract completely out, play on the franchise tag, then finally get the contract extension he deserves, only to basically repeat the same situation again 4 years later. You don't think there is a reason the contract he signed last time includes a "no franchise tag clause" specifically b/c of this? Again, if you disagree with my sentiment they he *will not* sign some sort of dream scenario "hometown discount" that is fine. I just feel its homer tinted glasses clouding your opinion a little bit.

Now as far as the "He's better off here to try to win" I would counter that maybe he doesn't think so. Its pretty common knowledge that is why Aaron Rodgers left Green Bay, and they had been to infinity more Championship games than Dak ever got to, and he is a 1st ballot HOF guy. But when they drafted a QB "instead of trying to add pieces to win" that seemed to be his final straw. What has Jerry actually done to show "he cares about winnning" This is supposed to be an "All In" season and they signed Zeke, a has been in Royce Freeman and what, a 30+ LB while at the same time not even offering a contract to their franchise All Pro LT, who they let walk for like $6m right? Maybe Dak thinks there are other teams out there that are truly committed to winning and will not only sign him, but also try to sign other free agents, try to trade for top tier players, etc. Again, we might differ on "that" particular, but there is a report out there showing the Cowboys are literally DEAD LAST in actual cash spent of all 32 teams over the last decade. Done by non other than a Cowboys website Blogging the Boys. As an outsider, and yes, an anti Cowboys guy b/c I'm an Eagles fan, the situation like this isn't lost on me. And you still got 2 other cornerstone players that, by all accounts, probably at least one also would have signed an extension by now, but the fact is you got a bunch of lame ducks at QB, HC and DC. Not really the definition of all in.

The discount isn't happening guys. This is big boy negotiations now and you either pay up to the guy or you let him walk, regardless of what your personal "what I would do" take is, you can't truly put yourself in Dak's shoes.

 

[Terpman22]

Once again we conveniently forget all the events that transpired to get us here. Just like Prescott, you guys can pretend like he didnt hold the team ransom to get more than he was worth his last go around and now that hes paid and underperformed, he wants to act like it never happened.

Nobody is a calling him greedy, Were calling him disingenuous

I'm fuzzy on this. Held the team hostage?

I was wrong. Dak did everything that was in the best interest of team success.

Hes a benevolent soul who deserves everything that he gets.

I think the "Tom Brady took discounts to help team" thing really skewed people's views on what a player is supposed to do when they sign a contract extension and that is....get every single penny they can, especially in violent sport like football. I'm sure its not lost on Dak that his predecessor basically stopped playing because of injuries.

Its the GM, and in this case GM/Owner's job to put together the best roster, with the best prices and negotiate, in the team's perspective, the best deals.

I'll beat this drum for as long as possible, but the Jones' way of "lets wait until the last minute to get a deal/extension" while every single other team for the most part tries to get one done ASAP definitely hamstrings both their ability to get a team friendly deal as well as construct the best roster possible. Add in the cheapness they show with spending on free agents and the risk averse nature they have displayed to *not* make big trades to improve their roster basically gets the franchise where they are right now.

Hypothetically speaking - they let Dak walk, Lance turns out to continue to be a bust, then what? The Cowboys roster is both good enough to get 6-9 wins with Trey Lance and not as bad enough to get the top 1-3 pick required to draft a new franchise QB. Do you guys actually see Jerry making a BIG move to move up from say pick 7-15 range into the top 2 to lock whoever the new flavor might be in 2026-2027? I personally do not.

You can talk about Brady, Jerry, Trey Lance, draft picks, hamstrings, and drums all day. None of that has anything to do with Prescott asking for everything he could get and now pretending like that never happened and saying that he would play for free.

He wants to be paid like a top tier QB but doesn’t produce like one.

Dak Prescott has performed like a top tier QB. He just doesn't get it done in the playoffs. Guy had 4500 yards, 36 TDs, 9 INTs and finished 2nd in MVP voting, was a 2nd team All-Pro and made the Pro Bowl. That's top tier.

I can't believe I'm here defending Dak Prescott, damn you @STEADYMOBBIN 22.

It's really stunning, you can see the turning on their QB in real time. 2 years ago all these guys would be non stop defending Dak, but now that he is on the cusp of a farewell season its basically "We don't need that guy!" mentality.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

I think we have to realize that there's more to the playoff wins/losses than Quarterback play.

That Peyton Manning was 14-13 in the playoffs sort of proves your point.

 

[Instinctive]

Who on the Cowboys is making 1.5X what Dak is making. Maybe someone at another "company" team is making that. How do you know that the other company will pay you that. And is it worth uprooting your family and life to move to this company.
It worked out good for Kirk Cousins, but did Minnesota win any more playoff games with Cousins.

The company in this scenario is the NFL. Split into 32 teams. You see the leader of another team, an inferior team with less proven ability. Of course, in this same scenario, you aren't "switching companies" but knowing the market for your ability and the fact that you and most of the company view you as a top 10 guy within the company at your position, you may just go to a new team to get your fair market value. Bc you have seen it done before and from experience, you know how it all works.

Hope that helps.

I like the attempt but this is a bad analogy.

A better one would be like you're the COO of Coke, and you're among the 10 highest paid COOs in America. But the COO of Pepsi makes more money, even though you do a better job. Of course, over at Pepsi, he has to work 80 hour weeks and you're cruising at 60, you have a great team of ex-MBB consultants and a couple auto industry guys, a phenomenal VP of Procurement, a great group of Supply Chain folks. Pepsi's team is similar, maybe not quite as good, and that's why that guy cranks 20 extra hours per week.

You know if you leave Coke you can get an offer from Keurig Dr Pepper for more than what the Pepsi guy makes. But their team is the worst of the three, and you probably will either need to put in 100 hours a week, or you'll fail and nobody will hire you as a COO again.

That's a far better analogy.

Hope that helps.

Sure, whatever floats your boat. The real point is Will Dak sign an extension with the Cowboys or not, and if he does, will it "be at a discount" or "market value"

Analogies be damned. Maybe yours is better, but if you think Dak "should sign a discounted contract" when he has all the leverage to *not* have to do that, we just disagree on the level of poker play this truly is. He's got a winning hand, and will be paid by Dallas or the next team at the $56-$60M/per year level. Thats just the fact.

I didn't say what I think at all. Also "whatever floats your boat" and "an analogies be damned" - maybe you already know, but comes off as pretty combative and rude for a guy who literally a couple posts above is trying to use an analogy to explain the situation.

It depends on what the guy wants. Were I in his shoes, with already enough money for generational wealth coming regardless, I'd be more focused on winning. I'm more like Dirk than I am like LeBron in my approach to contracts and winning.

The analogy is actually about the point that is is in fact possible he signs some amazing deal for $60M somewhere, then because he doesn't have as much support many more flaws get revealed, and his career is many years shorter or he is unhappier. Look at Russell Wilson!

I always try to maximize my happiness. With $40+M coming in per year, I don't get much marginal benefit from $15-20M more. I do get a lot of marginal benefit from things like winning, or not having to work as hard, and having fun and success.

Not everyone thinks that way. That's ok, nobody is required to. But it is one more reason my reaction is like "Cool, go get $60M elsewhere. You're not remotely good enough to win at that price and the way it hurts team building around you."

Not trying to be rude, its just kind of wild how so many people don't understand how this works. Per the bolded, its hard to put ourselves in these guys shoes, b/c none of us are rich already like this. There are other factors that go into it, like for instance, a lot of us don't either realize or accept the fact that a lot of pro athletes actually don't even like the sport they play, at least not nearly as much as us fans do. They figured out they can get this said generational wealth b/c they happen to be very very good at this particular job. Another factor is "pride" that I feel most fans don't factor in as well. Not saying 100% this stuff applies to Dak, but I'm sure the pride factor does. Not to mention how the Cowboys and Jerry Jones has treated Dak. Pretty much every other top tier franchise QB doesn't have to play his rookie contract completely out, play on the franchise tag, then finally get the contract extension he deserves, only to basically repeat the same situation again 4 years later. You don't think there is a reason the contract he signed last time includes a "no franchise tag clause" specifically b/c of this? Again, if you disagree with my sentiment they he *will not* sign some sort of dream scenario "hometown discount" that is fine. I just feel its homer tinted glasses clouding your opinion a little bit.

Now as far as the "He's better off here to try to win" I would counter that maybe he doesn't think so. Its pretty common knowledge that is why Aaron Rodgers left Green Bay, and they had been to infinity more Championship games than Dak ever got to, and he is a 1st ballot HOF guy. But when they drafted a QB "instead of trying to add pieces to win" that seemed to be his final straw. What has Jerry actually done to show "he cares about winnning" This is supposed to be an "All In" season and they signed Zeke, a has been in Royce Freeman and what, a 30+ LB while at the same time not even offering a contract to their franchise All Pro LT, who they let walk for like $6m right? Maybe Dak thinks there are other teams out there that are truly committed to winning and will not only sign him, but also try to sign other free agents, try to trade for top tier players, etc. Again, we might differ on "that" particular, but there is a report out there showing the Cowboys are literally DEAD LAST in actual cash spent of all 32 teams over the last decade. Done by non other than a Cowboys website Blogging the Boys. As an outsider, and yes, an anti Cowboys guy b/c I'm an Eagles fan, the situation like this isn't lost on me. And you still got 2 other cornerstone players that, by all accounts, probably at least one also would have signed an extension by now, but the fact is you got a bunch of lame ducks at QB, HC and DC. Not really the definition of all in.

The discount isn't happening guys. This is big boy negotiations now and you either pay up to the guy or you let him walk, regardless of what your personal "what I would do" take is, you can't truly put yourself in Dak's shoes.

tl;dr?

 

[Instinctive]

I think we have to realize that there's more to the playoff wins/losses than Quarterback play.

That Peyton Manning was 14-13 in the playoffs sort of proves your point.

But that's kind of the reason to let him walk isn't it? If you overpay at QB, it's nearly impossible to build the team you need around the guy.

The only real argument would be if EVERYONE paid that, then all the other values go down by enough that it's an even playing field. But plenty of teams don't pay $50M/yr for a QB.

 

[Terpman22]

Who on the Cowboys is making 1.5X what Dak is making. Maybe someone at another "company" team is making that. How do you know that the other company will pay you that. And is it worth uprooting your family and life to move to this company.
It worked out good for Kirk Cousins, but did Minnesota win any more playoff games with Cousins.

The company in this scenario is the NFL. Split into 32 teams. You see the leader of another team, an inferior team with less proven ability. Of course, in this same scenario, you aren't "switching companies" but knowing the market for your ability and the fact that you and most of the company view you as a top 10 guy within the company at your position, you may just go to a new team to get your fair market value. Bc you have seen it done before and from experience, you know how it all works.

Hope that helps.

I like the attempt but this is a bad analogy.

A better one would be like you're the COO of Coke, and you're among the 10 highest paid COOs in America. But the COO of Pepsi makes more money, even though you do a better job. Of course, over at Pepsi, he has to work 80 hour weeks and you're cruising at 60, you have a great team of ex-MBB consultants and a couple auto industry guys, a phenomenal VP of Procurement, a great group of Supply Chain folks. Pepsi's team is similar, maybe not quite as good, and that's why that guy cranks 20 extra hours per week.

You know if you leave Coke you can get an offer from Keurig Dr Pepper for more than what the Pepsi guy makes. But their team is the worst of the three, and you probably will either need to put in 100 hours a week, or you'll fail and nobody will hire you as a COO again.

That's a far better analogy.

Hope that helps.

Sure, whatever floats your boat. The real point is Will Dak sign an extension with the Cowboys or not, and if he does, will it "be at a discount" or "market value"

Analogies be damned. Maybe yours is better, but if you think Dak "should sign a discounted contract" when he has all the leverage to *not* have to do that, we just disagree on the level of poker play this truly is. He's got a winning hand, and will be paid by Dallas or the next team at the $56-$60M/per year level. Thats just the fact.

I didn't say what I think at all. Also "whatever floats your boat" and "an analogies be damned" - maybe you already know, but comes off as pretty combative and rude for a guy who literally a couple posts above is trying to use an analogy to explain the situation.

It depends on what the guy wants. Were I in his shoes, with already enough money for generational wealth coming regardless, I'd be more focused on winning. I'm more like Dirk than I am like LeBron in my approach to contracts and winning.

The analogy is actually about the point that is is in fact possible he signs some amazing deal for $60M somewhere, then because he doesn't have as much support many more flaws get revealed, and his career is many years shorter or he is unhappier. Look at Russell Wilson!

I always try to maximize my happiness. With $40+M coming in per year, I don't get much marginal benefit from $15-20M more. I do get a lot of marginal benefit from things like winning, or not having to work as hard, and having fun and success.

Not everyone thinks that way. That's ok, nobody is required to. But it is one more reason my reaction is like "Cool, go get $60M elsewhere. You're not remotely good enough to win at that price and the way it hurts team building around you."

Not trying to be rude, its just kind of wild how so many people don't understand how this works. Per the bolded, its hard to put ourselves in these guys shoes, b/c none of us are rich already like this. There are other factors that go into it, like for instance, a lot of us don't either realize or accept the fact that a lot of pro athletes actually don't even like the sport they play, at least not nearly as much as us fans do. They figured out they can get this said generational wealth b/c they happen to be very very good at this particular job. Another factor is "pride" that I feel most fans don't factor in as well. Not saying 100% this stuff applies to Dak, but I'm sure the pride factor does. Not to mention how the Cowboys and Jerry Jones has treated Dak. Pretty much every other top tier franchise QB doesn't have to play his rookie contract completely out, play on the franchise tag, then finally get the contract extension he deserves, only to basically repeat the same situation again 4 years later. You don't think there is a reason the contract he signed last time includes a "no franchise tag clause" specifically b/c of this? Again, if you disagree with my sentiment they he *will not* sign some sort of dream scenario "hometown discount" that is fine. I just feel its homer tinted glasses clouding your opinion a little bit.

Now as far as the "He's better off here to try to win" I would counter that maybe he doesn't think so. Its pretty common knowledge that is why Aaron Rodgers left Green Bay, and they had been to infinity more Championship games than Dak ever got to, and he is a 1st ballot HOF guy. But when they drafted a QB "instead of trying to add pieces to win" that seemed to be his final straw. What has Jerry actually done to show "he cares about winnning" This is supposed to be an "All In" season and they signed Zeke, a has been in Royce Freeman and what, a 30+ LB while at the same time not even offering a contract to their franchise All Pro LT, who they let walk for like $6m right? Maybe Dak thinks there are other teams out there that are truly committed to winning and will not only sign him, but also try to sign other free agents, try to trade for top tier players, etc. Again, we might differ on "that" particular, but there is a report out there showing the Cowboys are literally DEAD LAST in actual cash spent of all 32 teams over the last decade. Done by non other than a Cowboys website Blogging the Boys. As an outsider, and yes, an anti Cowboys guy b/c I'm an Eagles fan, the situation like this isn't lost on me. And you still got 2 other cornerstone players that, by all accounts, probably at least one also would have signed an extension by now, but the fact is you got a bunch of lame ducks at QB, HC and DC. Not really the definition of all in.

The discount isn't happening guys. This is big boy negotiations now and you either pay up to the guy or you let him walk, regardless of what your personal "what I would do" take is, you can't truly put yourself in Dak's shoes.

tl;dr?

Maybe go somewhere where the language is memes than ya know, 3-4 paragraphs, I dunno. Hope this response was short enough for ya

 

[jm192]

I think we have to realize that there's more to the playoff wins/losses than Quarterback play.

That Peyton Manning was 14-13 in the playoffs sort of proves your point.

But that's kind of the reason to let him walk isn't it? If you overpay at QB, it's nearly impossible to build the team you need around the guy.

The only real argument would be if EVERYONE paid that, then all the other values go down by enough that it's an even playing field. But plenty of teams don't pay $50M/yr for a QB.

In my opinion, no.

Again, you're not just going to up and go sign a "winning quarterback." You could draft someone. You'd probably need to get a top 5 pick to get a good one. Even then, you could get the next Trey Lance or Zach Wilson.

Dak is talented enough to win it all. I would certainly consider him in the top 10 of NFL QB's. You're going to have to pay for that. If you don't pay it, you're immediately not good enough to compete. You're rebuilding. Another team is going to be ecstatic to pay for it.

If I were a Cowboys fan, I'd rather they keep him and improve the team around him. Dak made mistakes in the Playoff game vs GB. His turnovers led to two touchdowns. Green Bay scored another 34 points. Dak was able to lead the Dallas offense to 32 points. It's easy to say the turnovers were the reason you lost. What about the other 34 points? Are you sure the guy you replace Dak with leads the offense to 32 points in a playoff game? I'm certainly not.

 

[Instinctive]

I think we have to realize that there's more to the playoff wins/losses than Quarterback play.

That Peyton Manning was 14-13 in the playoffs sort of proves your point.

But that's kind of the reason to let him walk isn't it? If you overpay at QB, it's nearly impossible to build the team you need around the guy.

The only real argument would be if EVERYONE paid that, then all the other values go down by enough that it's an even playing field. But plenty of teams don't pay $50M/yr for a QB.

In my opinion, no.

Again, you're not just going to up and go sign a "winning quarterback." You could draft someone. You'd probably need to get a top 5 pick to get a good one. Even then, you could get the next Trey Lance or Zach Wilson.

Dak is talented enough to win it all. I would certainly consider him in the top 10 of NFL QB's. You're going to have to pay for that. If you don't pay it, you're immediately not good enough to compete. You're rebuilding. Another team is going to be ecstatic to pay for it.

If I were a Cowboys fan, I'd rather they keep him and improve the team around him. Dak made mistakes in the Playoff game vs GB. His turnovers led to two touchdowns. Green Bay scored another 34 points. Dak was able to lead the Dallas offense to 32 points. It's easy to say the turnovers were the reason you lost. What about the other 34 points? Are you sure the guy you replace Dak with leads the offense to 32 points in a playoff game? I'm certainly not.

I think you misunderstood my point.

I wholly agree that the best way to win is to dramatically improve the team around him. He's good enough to win with a great team around him. Almost nobody is so transcendent that they can overcome a just ok team (Mahomes....that's it?).

The problem is if you spend 30+% of the cap on a QB who's good but not transcendent, you aren't building the improved team around him that you're claiming they need. Which I agree, they need!

Look at all the recent SB participants. Hell look at the final four participants. What % of the cap did they spend on QB? (Hint, it's generally not that much).

 

[jm192]

I think we have to realize that there's more to the playoff wins/losses than Quarterback play.

That Peyton Manning was 14-13 in the playoffs sort of proves your point.

But that's kind of the reason to let him walk isn't it? If you overpay at QB, it's nearly impossible to build the team you need around the guy.

The only real argument would be if EVERYONE paid that, then all the other values go down by enough that it's an even playing field. But plenty of teams don't pay $50M/yr for a QB.

In my opinion, no.

Again, you're not just going to up and go sign a "winning quarterback." You could draft someone. You'd probably need to get a top 5 pick to get a good one. Even then, you could get the next Trey Lance or Zach Wilson.

Dak is talented enough to win it all. I would certainly consider him in the top 10 of NFL QB's. You're going to have to pay for that. If you don't pay it, you're immediately not good enough to compete. You're rebuilding. Another team is going to be ecstatic to pay for it.

If I were a Cowboys fan, I'd rather they keep him and improve the team around him. Dak made mistakes in the Playoff game vs GB. His turnovers led to two touchdowns. Green Bay scored another 34 points. Dak was able to lead the Dallas offense to 32 points. It's easy to say the turnovers were the reason you lost. What about the other 34 points? Are you sure the guy you replace Dak with leads the offense to 32 points in a playoff game? I'm certainly not.

I think you misunderstood my point.

I wholly agree that the best way to win is to dramatically improve the team around him. He's good enough to win with a great team around him. Almost nobody is so transcendent that they can overcome a just ok team (Mahomes....that's it?).

The problem is if you spend 30+% of the cap on a QB who's good but not transcendent, you aren't building the improved team around him that you're claiming they need. Which I agree, they need!

Look at all the recent SB participants. Hell look at the final four participants. What % of the cap did they spend on QB? (Hint, it's generally not that much).

Certainly, the DREAM is to find a star QB and make a run while he's on the rookie contract. And yeah, it makes perfect sense to say "We want to pay that for our QB." But you're going to have to lose the QB you have. And then hope you find one and repeat the process. There are no good long term answers at QB without paying the guy.

Kansas City had re-worked Mahommes deal going into 2023 so he was making over 50 million, and they won it all. He's an outlier, because he's so amazing. But you can indeed look to the last Superbowl and see the best team paid their QB a lot of money and still found a way to win.

 

[Instinctive]

I think we have to realize that there's more to the playoff wins/losses than Quarterback play.

That Peyton Manning was 14-13 in the playoffs sort of proves your point.

But that's kind of the reason to let him walk isn't it? If you overpay at QB, it's nearly impossible to build the team you need around the guy.

The only real argument would be if EVERYONE paid that, then all the other values go down by enough that it's an even playing field. But plenty of teams don't pay $50M/yr for a QB.

In my opinion, no.

Again, you're not just going to up and go sign a "winning quarterback." You could draft someone. You'd probably need to get a top 5 pick to get a good one. Even then, you could get the next Trey Lance or Zach Wilson.

Dak is talented enough to win it all. I would certainly consider him in the top 10 of NFL QB's. You're going to have to pay for that. If you don't pay it, you're immediately not good enough to compete. You're rebuilding. Another team is going to be ecstatic to pay for it.

If I were a Cowboys fan, I'd rather they keep him and improve the team around him. Dak made mistakes in the Playoff game vs GB. His turnovers led to two touchdowns. Green Bay scored another 34 points. Dak was able to lead the Dallas offense to 32 points. It's easy to say the turnovers were the reason you lost. What about the other 34 points? Are you sure the guy you replace Dak with leads the offense to 32 points in a playoff game? I'm certainly not.

I think you misunderstood my point.

I wholly agree that the best way to win is to dramatically improve the team around him. He's good enough to win with a great team around him. Almost nobody is so transcendent that they can overcome a just ok team (Mahomes....that's it?).

The problem is if you spend 30+% of the cap on a QB who's good but not transcendent, you aren't building the improved team around him that you're claiming they need. Which I agree, they need!

Look at all the recent SB participants. Hell look at the final four participants. What % of the cap did they spend on QB? (Hint, it's generally not that much).

Certainly, the DREAM is to find a star QB and make a run while he's on the rookie contract. And yeah, it makes perfect sense to say "We want to pay that for our QB." But you're going to have to lose the QB you have. And then hope you find one and repeat the process. There are no good long term answers at QB without paying the guy.

Kansas City had re-worked Mahommes deal going into 2023 so he was making over 50 million, and they won it all. He's an outlier, because he's so amazing. But you can indeed look to the last Superbowl and see the best team paid their QB a lot of money and still found a way to win.

Right. That's what I said.

Believe what you want I guess. But "did they have a highly paid QB?" The answer is a vast majority "no" for conference championship game teams. Which I assume you know, since you avoided the question to reiterate a non sequitur point.

We just disagree. I'd rather contend for a title. This team, I don't think will. And if you blow 50% more than you already do for the same QB they definitely won't.

So yeah they may suck a year or two to find a QB. Oh well. I'm here to win it not go 10-7 or 11-6 and lose all the time.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

But that's kind of the reason to let him walk isn't it? If you overpay at QB, it's nearly impossible to build the team you need around the guy.

1) build a monster team around an elite QB while he's on his rookie contract
2) build an offense around an elite and expensive QB and hope your defense is good enough to win and/or has a fluky year with turnovers
3) build a strong defense behind an elite, expensive QB and skimp at the skill positions
4) build an absolutely historical, otherworldly defense and hope to win with a journeyman QB having a career year

I'm not really sure there's another path and 1,2 and 3 require an elite QB. Four happens sometimes when the stars come together for a defense, and I'm not sure you can actually plan for that in the 2020s anyhow. So if you don't have an elite QB on his first contract you kind of have to go for #2 or #3 IMO.

 

[TVT 0 N S T A]

@Terpman22 and @jm192

It's unheard of to find a QB outside of the top 5 picks. As we argue about a QB selected in the 4th round. Lol.

If you're confident in Lance or finding a QB (above average) - F***'s sake, we aren't even calling him good anymore. Above average QB, 7 round draft... just above average is the requirement and he doesnt exist in the draft... I don't think you both realize how many salaries can be paid on that one QB contract.

I think there are plenty of Dak Prescott's in every year of the draft. I think they end up on bad teams or stuck behind a better player and don't see a chance. Lol, nobody thought Jordan Love was worthy of being an NFL starter and now look. My only regret is we can't get anything in return for trading him.

I used to really like Dak but something about an Eagles fan arguing how good he is that has turned me off.

 

[Terpman22]

@Terpman22 and @jm192

It's unheard of to find a QB outside of the top 5 picks. As we argue about a QB selected in the 4th round. Lol.

If you're confident in Lance or finding a QB (above average) - F***'s sake, we aren't even calling him good anymore. Above average QB, 7 round draft... just above average is the requirement and he doesnt exist in the draft... I don't think you both realize how many salaries can be paid on that one QB contract.

I think there are plenty of Dak Prescott's in every year of the draft. I think they end up on bad teams or stuck behind a better player and don't see a chance. Lol, nobody thought Jordan Love was worthy of being an NFL starter and now look. My only regret is we can't get anything in return for trading him.

I used to really like Dak but something about an Eagles fan arguing how good he is that has turned me off.

I mean I hear ya. I'll point out that the following QBs were found beyond pick 5:

Mahomes, Purdy, Hurts, Allen, Love.

You just gotta have the right coaching and a commitment to building around him. The whole "win a Super Bowl on a rookie contract with your QB" seems like a flawed argument. Mahomes did it, then he did it 2x on a big contract. Generational, sure, but that's why you gotta be smart with roster building and contract structure. Somehow my Eagles paid Hurts at the top of the market THEN locked up both their starting WRs to top 10 $$. I just think the biggest problem in Dallas really is the lack of creativity when it comes to both contracts and roster structure. My opinion on each of these varies to a degree but its a combination of Jerry's ego mixed with him wanting "the cowboy way" to be a certain kind of way - which is geared to both deference to him as well as some weird "the star makes you more money on its own" sort of mantra.

And I'm not arguing Dak is elite, my main point is mixed both with "you should pay him" and also "if you really are going to let him walk" why the hell not get some picks more than a 3rd comp for him if you just let him walk scot free. I also think there is a factor, again back to Jerry/Ego is a year of 3/4/5 wins while he is ok with it in a vacuum, what he is NOT ok with is either the Cowboys being talked about in a negative way or even worse, not even talked about at all.

Does he "Deserve $60M" is a question for the market. Is he WORTH the contract might be a different discussion altogether.

 

[dickey moe]

Good but not great QBs seeking 2nd and 3rd contracts seem to be headaches for franchises. Usually good enough to routinely reset the market, thereby making it more difficult to retain/recruit other talent, and usually not good enough to lead their team to a Super Bowl.

 

[Instinctive]

@Terpman22 and @jm192

It's unheard of to find a QB outside of the top 5 picks. As we argue about a QB selected in the 4th round. Lol.

If you're confident in Lance or finding a QB (above average) - F***'s sake, we aren't even calling him good anymore. Above average QB, 7 round draft... just above average is the requirement and he doesnt exist in the draft... I don't think you both realize how many salaries can be paid on that one QB contract.

I think there are plenty of Dak Prescott's in every year of the draft. I think they end up on bad teams or stuck behind a better player and don't see a chance. Lol, nobody thought Jordan Love was worthy of being an NFL starter and now look. My only regret is we can't get anything in return for trading him.

I used to really like Dak but something about an Eagles fan arguing how good he is that has turned me off.

I mean I hear ya. I'll point out that the following QBs were found beyond pick 5:

Mahomes, Purdy, Hurts, Allen, Love.

You just gotta have the right coaching and a commitment to building around him. The whole "win a Super Bowl on a rookie contract with your QB" seems like a flawed argument. Mahomes did it, then he did it 2x on a big contract. Generational, sure, but that's why you gotta be smart with roster building and contract structure. Somehow my Eagles paid Hurts at the top of the market THEN locked up both their starting WRs to top 10 $$. I just think the biggest problem in Dallas really is the lack of creativity when it comes to both contracts and roster structure. My opinion on each of these varies to a degree but its a combination of Jerry's ego mixed with him wanting "the cowboy way" to be a certain kind of way - which is geared to both deference to him as well as some weird "the star makes you more money on its own" sort of mantra.

And I'm not arguing Dak is elite, my main point is mixed both with "you should pay him" and also "if you really are going to let him walk" why the hell not get some picks more than a 3rd comp for him if you just let him walk scot free. I also think there is a factor, again back to Jerry/Ego is a year of 3/4/5 wins while he is ok with it in a vacuum, what he is NOT ok with is either the Cowboys being talked about in a negative way or even worse, not even talked about at all.

Does he "Deserve $60M" is a question for the market. Is he WORTH the contract might be a different discussion altogether.

How have the Eagles and Bills performed with their new big QB contracts?

 

[jm192]

I think we have to realize that there's more to the playoff wins/losses than Quarterback play.

That Peyton Manning was 14-13 in the playoffs sort of proves your point.

But that's kind of the reason to let him walk isn't it? If you overpay at QB, it's nearly impossible to build the team you need around the guy.

The only real argument would be if EVERYONE paid that, then all the other values go down by enough that it's an even playing field. But plenty of teams don't pay $50M/yr for a QB.

In my opinion, no.

Again, you're not just going to up and go sign a "winning quarterback." You could draft someone. You'd probably need to get a top 5 pick to get a good one. Even then, you could get the next Trey Lance or Zach Wilson.

Dak is talented enough to win it all. I would certainly consider him in the top 10 of NFL QB's. You're going to have to pay for that. If you don't pay it, you're immediately not good enough to compete. You're rebuilding. Another team is going to be ecstatic to pay for it.

If I were a Cowboys fan, I'd rather they keep him and improve the team around him. Dak made mistakes in the Playoff game vs GB. His turnovers led to two touchdowns. Green Bay scored another 34 points. Dak was able to lead the Dallas offense to 32 points. It's easy to say the turnovers were the reason you lost. What about the other 34 points? Are you sure the guy you replace Dak with leads the offense to 32 points in a playoff game? I'm certainly not.

I think you misunderstood my point.

I wholly agree that the best way to win is to dramatically improve the team around him. He's good enough to win with a great team around him. Almost nobody is so transcendent that they can overcome a just ok team (Mahomes....that's it?).

The problem is if you spend 30+% of the cap on a QB who's good but not transcendent, you aren't building the improved team around him that you're claiming they need. Which I agree, they need!

Look at all the recent SB participants. Hell look at the final four participants. What % of the cap did they spend on QB? (Hint, it's generally not that much).

Certainly, the DREAM is to find a star QB and make a run while he's on the rookie contract. And yeah, it makes perfect sense to say "We want to pay that for our QB." But you're going to have to lose the QB you have. And then hope you find one and repeat the process. There are no good long term answers at QB without paying the guy.

Kansas City had re-worked Mahommes deal going into 2023 so he was making over 50 million, and they won it all. He's an outlier, because he's so amazing. But you can indeed look to the last Superbowl and see the best team paid their QB a lot of money and still found a way to win.

Right. That's what I said.

Believe what you want I guess. But "did they have a highly paid QB?" The answer is a vast majority "no" for conference championship game teams. Which I assume you know, since you avoided the question to reiterate a non sequitur point.

We just disagree. I'd rather contend for a title. This team, I don't think will. And if you blow 50% more than you already do for the same QB they definitely won't.

So yeah they may suck a year or two to find a QB. Oh well. I'm here to win it not go 10-7 or 11-6 and lose all the time.

I'm sorry I didn't go team by team.

Chiefs: 50 million +
Ravens: 50 million+
Lions: Was cheap, promptly got 50 million+
49ers: You got me there, they're still not paying him.

2/4 "final 4" already were paying 50 million plus. Stop me when we've proven you can't go to the SB with a highly paid QB.

Hurts went to the superbowl--getting 50 million plus.
Burrow to the Superbowl--50 million plus.

So while it's a great notion that "We should just do it with a cheap QB." Everyone pays the guys that do it. You're not getting Goff cheap. You're not getting Purdy cheap. There is no proven winner coming on a discount.

You go on to say "So yeah, they may suck a year or two to find a QB." You can't be serious with that. Look at the Bills QB's before Josh Allen. Look at the lengthy list of Browns QB Failures. Look at the Titans QB history since McNair.

"Oh, we'll be bad for 2 years while we find an elite QB." It doesn't work that way. It's THE premium position. An ELITE one is very hard to find. That's why NFL teams are quick to pay them stupid money to keep them.

 

[Snotbubbles]

I think we have to realize that there's more to the playoff wins/losses than Quarterback play.

That Peyton Manning was 14-13 in the playoffs sort of proves your point.

But that's kind of the reason to let him walk isn't it? If you overpay at QB, it's nearly impossible to build the team you need around the guy.

The only real argument would be if EVERYONE paid that, then all the other values go down by enough that it's an even playing field. But plenty of teams don't pay $50M/yr for a QB.

In my opinion, no.

Again, you're not just going to up and go sign a "winning quarterback." You could draft someone. You'd probably need to get a top 5 pick to get a good one. Even then, you could get the next Trey Lance or Zach Wilson.

Dak is talented enough to win it all. I would certainly consider him in the top 10 of NFL QB's. You're going to have to pay for that. If you don't pay it, you're immediately not good enough to compete. You're rebuilding. Another team is going to be ecstatic to pay for it.

If I were a Cowboys fan, I'd rather they keep him and improve the team around him. Dak made mistakes in the Playoff game vs GB. His turnovers led to two touchdowns. Green Bay scored another 34 points. Dak was able to lead the Dallas offense to 32 points. It's easy to say the turnovers were the reason you lost. What about the other 34 points? Are you sure the guy you replace Dak with leads the offense to 32 points in a playoff game? I'm certainly not.

I think you misunderstood my point.

I wholly agree that the best way to win is to dramatically improve the team around him. He's good enough to win with a great team around him. Almost nobody is so transcendent that they can overcome a just ok team (Mahomes....that's it?).

The problem is if you spend 30+% of the cap on a QB who's good but not transcendent, you aren't building the improved team around him that you're claiming they need. Which I agree, they need!

Look at all the recent SB participants. Hell look at the final four participants. What % of the cap did they spend on QB? (Hint, it's generally not that much).

Jalen Hurts just signed a $51M AAV contract. His cap hit % going forward are:

2024: 5.2%
2025: 8.4%
2026: 11.2%
2027: 13.3%

Just structure the contract so the cap hits are low for the next 4 years.

 

[dblock05]

I think we have to realize that there's more to the playoff wins/losses than Quarterback play.

That Peyton Manning was 14-13 in the playoffs sort of proves your point.

But that's kind of the reason to let him walk isn't it? If you overpay at QB, it's nearly impossible to build the team you need around the guy.

The only real argument would be if EVERYONE paid that, then all the other values go down by enough that it's an even playing field. But plenty of teams don't pay $50M/yr for a QB.

In my opinion, no.

Again, you're not just going to up and go sign a "winning quarterback." You could draft someone. You'd probably need to get a top 5 pick to get a good one. Even then, you could get the next Trey Lance or Zach Wilson.

Dak is talented enough to win it all. I would certainly consider him in the top 10 of NFL QB's. You're going to have to pay for that. If you don't pay it, you're immediately not good enough to compete. You're rebuilding. Another team is going to be ecstatic to pay for it.

If I were a Cowboys fan, I'd rather they keep him and improve the team around him. Dak made mistakes in the Playoff game vs GB. His turnovers led to two touchdowns. Green Bay scored another 34 points. Dak was able to lead the Dallas offense to 32 points. It's easy to say the turnovers were the reason you lost. What about the other 34 points? Are you sure the guy you replace Dak with leads the offense to 32 points in a playoff game? I'm certainly not.

I think you misunderstood my point.

I wholly agree that the best way to win is to dramatically improve the team around him. He's good enough to win with a great team around him. Almost nobody is so transcendent that they can overcome a just ok team (Mahomes....that's it?).

The problem is if you spend 30+% of the cap on a QB who's good but not transcendent, you aren't building the improved team around him that you're claiming they need. Which I agree, they need!

Look at all the recent SB participants. Hell look at the final four participants. What % of the cap did they spend on QB? (Hint, it's generally not that much).

Jalen Hurts just signed a $51M AAV contract. His cap hit % going forward are:

2024: 5.2%
2025: 8.4%
2026: 11.2%
2027: 13.3%

Just structure the contract so the cap hits are low for the next 4 years.

He also has 4 or 5 years of void years on that contract. But you can do that when you believe in your QB.

 

[Cowboysfan8]

I think we have to realize that there's more to the playoff wins/losses than Quarterback play.

That Peyton Manning was 14-13 in the playoffs sort of proves your point.

But that's kind of the reason to let him walk isn't it? If you overpay at QB, it's nearly impossible to build the team you need around the guy.

The only real argument would be if EVERYONE paid that, then all the other values go down by enough that it's an even playing field. But plenty of teams don't pay $50M/yr for a QB.

In my opinion, no.

Again, you're not just going to up and go sign a "winning quarterback." You could draft someone. You'd probably need to get a top 5 pick to get a good one. Even then, you could get the next Trey Lance or Zach Wilson.

Dak is talented enough to win it all. I would certainly consider him in the top 10 of NFL QB's. You're going to have to pay for that. If you don't pay it, you're immediately not good enough to compete. You're rebuilding. Another team is going to be ecstatic to pay for it.

If I were a Cowboys fan, I'd rather they keep him and improve the team around him. Dak made mistakes in the Playoff game vs GB. His turnovers led to two touchdowns. Green Bay scored another 34 points. Dak was able to lead the Dallas offense to 32 points. It's easy to say the turnovers were the reason you lost. What about the other 34 points? Are you sure the guy you replace Dak with leads the offense to 32 points in a playoff game? I'm certainly not.

I think you misunderstood my point.

I wholly agree that the best way to win is to dramatically improve the team around him. He's good enough to win with a great team around him. Almost nobody is so transcendent that they can overcome a just ok team (Mahomes....that's it?).

The problem is if you spend 30+% of the cap on a QB who's good but not transcendent, you aren't building the improved team around him that you're claiming they need. Which I agree, they need!

Look at all the recent SB participants. Hell look at the final four participants. What % of the cap did they spend on QB? (Hint, it's generally not that much).

Jalen Hurts just signed a $51M AAV contract. His cap hit % going forward are:

2024: 5.2%
2025: 8.4%
2026: 11.2%
2027: 13.3%

Just structure the contract so the cap hits are low for the next 4 years.

Do you have any comments on the “Hurts basically threw his HC under the bus recently” stuff that’s going around? That ex Eagles players are coming out stating it’s a problem?
I noticed it hasn’t been mentioned in the eagles thread….i don’t want to ask about it in there there because…well…anything I post in there isn’t well received..

 

[Instinctive]

I think we have to realize that there's more to the playoff wins/losses than Quarterback play.

That Peyton Manning was 14-13 in the playoffs sort of proves your point.

But that's kind of the reason to let him walk isn't it? If you overpay at QB, it's nearly impossible to build the team you need around the guy.

The only real argument would be if EVERYONE paid that, then all the other values go down by enough that it's an even playing field. But plenty of teams don't pay $50M/yr for a QB.

In my opinion, no.

Again, you're not just going to up and go sign a "winning quarterback." You could draft someone. You'd probably need to get a top 5 pick to get a good one. Even then, you could get the next Trey Lance or Zach Wilson.

Dak is talented enough to win it all. I would certainly consider him in the top 10 of NFL QB's. You're going to have to pay for that. If you don't pay it, you're immediately not good enough to compete. You're rebuilding. Another team is going to be ecstatic to pay for it.

If I were a Cowboys fan, I'd rather they keep him and improve the team around him. Dak made mistakes in the Playoff game vs GB. His turnovers led to two touchdowns. Green Bay scored another 34 points. Dak was able to lead the Dallas offense to 32 points. It's easy to say the turnovers were the reason you lost. What about the other 34 points? Are you sure the guy you replace Dak with leads the offense to 32 points in a playoff game? I'm certainly not.

I think you misunderstood my point.

I wholly agree that the best way to win is to dramatically improve the team around him. He's good enough to win with a great team around him. Almost nobody is so transcendent that they can overcome a just ok team (Mahomes....that's it?).

The problem is if you spend 30+% of the cap on a QB who's good but not transcendent, you aren't building the improved team around him that you're claiming they need. Which I agree, they need!

Look at all the recent SB participants. Hell look at the final four participants. What % of the cap did they spend on QB? (Hint, it's generally not that much).

Certainly, the DREAM is to find a star QB and make a run while he's on the rookie contract. And yeah, it makes perfect sense to say "We want to pay that for our QB." But you're going to have to lose the QB you have. And then hope you find one and repeat the process. There are no good long term answers at QB without paying the guy.

Kansas City had re-worked Mahommes deal going into 2023 so he was making over 50 million, and they won it all. He's an outlier, because he's so amazing. But you can indeed look to the last Superbowl and see the best team paid their QB a lot of money and still found a way to win.

Right. That's what I said.

Believe what you want I guess. But "did they have a highly paid QB?" The answer is a vast majority "no" for conference championship game teams. Which I assume you know, since you avoided the question to reiterate a non sequitur point.

We just disagree. I'd rather contend for a title. This team, I don't think will. And if you blow 50% more than you already do for the same QB they definitely won't.

So yeah they may suck a year or two to find a QB. Oh well. I'm here to win it not go 10-7 or 11-6 and lose all the time.

I'm sorry I didn't go team by team.

Chiefs: 50 million +
Ravens: 50 million+
Lions: Was cheap, promptly got 50 million+
49ers: You got me there, they're still not paying him.

2/4 "final 4" already were paying 50 million plus. Stop me when we've proven you can't go to the SB with a highly paid QB.

Hurts went to the superbowl--getting 50 million plus.
Burrow to the Superbowl--50 million plus.

So while it's a great notion that "We should just do it with a cheap QB." Everyone pays the guys that do it. You're not getting Goff cheap. You're not getting Purdy cheap. There is no proven winner coming on a discount.

You go on to say "So yeah, they may suck a year or two to find a QB." You can't be serious with that. Look at the Bills QB's before Josh Allen. Look at the lengthy list of Browns QB Failures. Look at the Titans QB history since McNair.

"Oh, we'll be bad for 2 years while we find an elite QB." It doesn't work that way. It's THE premium position. An ELITE one is very hard to find. That's why NFL teams are quick to pay them stupid money to keep them.

So lets see how the Lions do now. I'm not making the point about how they get paid and make after, but about how paying them hamstrings you if they aren't that elite. These are year of super bowl with that season's salary (so, weirdly, it means Mahomes 2023 season salary for the 2024 super bowl). I rounded to the nearest %.

'24 Mahomes: 17%
'24 Purdy: 1%
'23 Mahomes: 17%
'23 Hurts: 1%
'22 Burrow: 4%
'22 Stafford: 11%
'21 Mahomes: 2%
'21 Brady: 12%
'20 Mahomes: 2%
'20 Garoppolo: 9%
'19 Brady: 12%
'19 Goff: 4%
'18 Brady: 8%
'18 Wentz (Foles, but Wentz higher salary is what salary matters here): 3%
'17 Brady: 9%
'17 Ryan: 15%
'16 Manning: 12%
'16 Newton: 9%
'15 Brady: 11%
'15 Wilson: 1%

I can go back farther if we need, but that kind of proves the point doesn't it?

10 years, under similar cap rules, and because it's a round number and I'm tired of this being so obvious.
20 teams
3 times did the QB make 15% of the cap or more - the last two of Mahomes, and a crazy Matt Ryan year
5 more times did the QB make over 10% of the cap - all five are HOF QBs including two of the five best ever, 3 Brady seasons, Peyton Manning, and Matt Stafford
4 more times were they over 5% - twice more Brady, Jimmy G (same playcaller as the Ryan year), and Cam Newton
The final 8 times are all under 5%, with five of those being 2% or less (btw, including every single Philly SB appearance in this time).

So 60% of teams pay the guy less than 10% of the cap, and 85% of teams less than 15%.

You don't make the SB unless you have:
A) One of the greatest QBs of all time
B) you aren't paying your QB 10% of the cap
C) Kyle Shanahan is calling plays

$60M, even if you structure it super creatively, will be over 10% of the cap. And Dak may put up some regular season numbers, but he is no Mahomes, Brady, or Manning. If he's Matt Ryan, fine. 1 SB appearance in the year he had the best offensive playcaller in the NFL. If you get me Kyle Shanahan to replace McCarthy, I'll live with Dak.

At the end of the day, you need a HOF QB to win a super bowl, or you need a really cheap one. Even better if he's amazing and really cheap.


It's funny because you're making some of my points for me. An Elite QB is incredibly hard to find. And you basically only get one by drafting him. A good cheap QB is hard to find. And you basically only get one by drafting him.

 

[Instinctive]

I think we have to realize that there's more to the playoff wins/losses than Quarterback play.

That Peyton Manning was 14-13 in the playoffs sort of proves your point.

But that's kind of the reason to let him walk isn't it? If you overpay at QB, it's nearly impossible to build the team you need around the guy.

The only real argument would be if EVERYONE paid that, then all the other values go down by enough that it's an even playing field. But plenty of teams don't pay $50M/yr for a QB.

In my opinion, no.

Again, you're not just going to up and go sign a "winning quarterback." You could draft someone. You'd probably need to get a top 5 pick to get a good one. Even then, you could get the next Trey Lance or Zach Wilson.

Dak is talented enough to win it all. I would certainly consider him in the top 10 of NFL QB's. You're going to have to pay for that. If you don't pay it, you're immediately not good enough to compete. You're rebuilding. Another team is going to be ecstatic to pay for it.

If I were a Cowboys fan, I'd rather they keep him and improve the team around him. Dak made mistakes in the Playoff game vs GB. His turnovers led to two touchdowns. Green Bay scored another 34 points. Dak was able to lead the Dallas offense to 32 points. It's easy to say the turnovers were the reason you lost. What about the other 34 points? Are you sure the guy you replace Dak with leads the offense to 32 points in a playoff game? I'm certainly not.

I think you misunderstood my point.

I wholly agree that the best way to win is to dramatically improve the team around him. He's good enough to win with a great team around him. Almost nobody is so transcendent that they can overcome a just ok team (Mahomes....that's it?).

The problem is if you spend 30+% of the cap on a QB who's good but not transcendent, you aren't building the improved team around him that you're claiming they need. Which I agree, they need!

Look at all the recent SB participants. Hell look at the final four participants. What % of the cap did they spend on QB? (Hint, it's generally not that much).

Jalen Hurts just signed a $51M AAV contract. His cap hit % going forward are:

2024: 5.2%
2025: 8.4%
2026: 11.2%
2027: 13.3%

Just structure the contract so the cap hits are low for the next 4 years.

So now you're saying "pay him now to be good and be ok sucking later when you have a ton of dead cap." That's a different argument.

 

[jm192]

I think we have to realize that there's more to the playoff wins/losses than Quarterback play.

That Peyton Manning was 14-13 in the playoffs sort of proves your point.

But that's kind of the reason to let him walk isn't it? If you overpay at QB, it's nearly impossible to build the team you need around the guy.

The only real argument would be if EVERYONE paid that, then all the other values go down by enough that it's an even playing field. But plenty of teams don't pay $50M/yr for a QB.

In my opinion, no.

Again, you're not just going to up and go sign a "winning quarterback." You could draft someone. You'd probably need to get a top 5 pick to get a good one. Even then, you could get the next Trey Lance or Zach Wilson.

Dak is talented enough to win it all. I would certainly consider him in the top 10 of NFL QB's. You're going to have to pay for that. If you don't pay it, you're immediately not good enough to compete. You're rebuilding. Another team is going to be ecstatic to pay for it.

If I were a Cowboys fan, I'd rather they keep him and improve the team around him. Dak made mistakes in the Playoff game vs GB. His turnovers led to two touchdowns. Green Bay scored another 34 points. Dak was able to lead the Dallas offense to 32 points. It's easy to say the turnovers were the reason you lost. What about the other 34 points? Are you sure the guy you replace Dak with leads the offense to 32 points in a playoff game? I'm certainly not.

I think you misunderstood my point.

I wholly agree that the best way to win is to dramatically improve the team around him. He's good enough to win with a great team around him. Almost nobody is so transcendent that they can overcome a just ok team (Mahomes....that's it?).

The problem is if you spend 30+% of the cap on a QB who's good but not transcendent, you aren't building the improved team around him that you're claiming they need. Which I agree, they need!

Look at all the recent SB participants. Hell look at the final four participants. What % of the cap did they spend on QB? (Hint, it's generally not that much).

Certainly, the DREAM is to find a star QB and make a run while he's on the rookie contract. And yeah, it makes perfect sense to say "We want to pay that for our QB." But you're going to have to lose the QB you have. And then hope you find one and repeat the process. There are no good long term answers at QB without paying the guy.

Kansas City had re-worked Mahommes deal going into 2023 so he was making over 50 million, and they won it all. He's an outlier, because he's so amazing. But you can indeed look to the last Superbowl and see the best team paid their QB a lot of money and still found a way to win.

Right. That's what I said.

Believe what you want I guess. But "did they have a highly paid QB?" The answer is a vast majority "no" for conference championship game teams. Which I assume you know, since you avoided the question to reiterate a non sequitur point.

We just disagree. I'd rather contend for a title. This team, I don't think will. And if you blow 50% more than you already do for the same QB they definitely won't.

So yeah they may suck a year or two to find a QB. Oh well. I'm here to win it not go 10-7 or 11-6 and lose all the time.

I'm sorry I didn't go team by team.

Chiefs: 50 million +
Ravens: 50 million+
Lions: Was cheap, promptly got 50 million+
49ers: You got me there, they're still not paying him.

2/4 "final 4" already were paying 50 million plus. Stop me when we've proven you can't go to the SB with a highly paid QB.

Hurts went to the superbowl--getting 50 million plus.
Burrow to the Superbowl--50 million plus.

So while it's a great notion that "We should just do it with a cheap QB." Everyone pays the guys that do it. You're not getting Goff cheap. You're not getting Purdy cheap. There is no proven winner coming on a discount.

You go on to say "So yeah, they may suck a year or two to find a QB." You can't be serious with that. Look at the Bills QB's before Josh Allen. Look at the lengthy list of Browns QB Failures. Look at the Titans QB history since McNair.

"Oh, we'll be bad for 2 years while we find an elite QB." It doesn't work that way. It's THE premium position. An ELITE one is very hard to find. That's why NFL teams are quick to pay them stupid money to keep them.

So lets see how the Lions do now. I'm not making the point about how they get paid and make after, but about how paying them hamstrings you if they aren't that elite. These are year of super bowl with that season's salary (so, weirdly, it means Mahomes 2023 season salary for the 2024 super bowl). I rounded to the nearest %.

'24 Mahomes: 17%
'24 Purdy: 1%
'23 Mahomes: 17%
'23 Hurts: 1%
'22 Burrow: 4%
'22 Stafford: 11%
'21 Mahomes: 2%
'21 Brady: 12%
'20 Mahomes: 2%
'20 Garoppolo: 9%
'19 Brady: 12%
'19 Goff: 4%
'18 Brady: 8%
'18 Wentz (Foles, but Wentz higher salary is what salary matters here): 3%
'17 Brady: 9%
'17 Ryan: 15%
'16 Manning: 12%
'16 Newton: 9%
'15 Brady: 11%
'15 Wilson: 1%

I can go back farther if we need, but that kind of proves the point doesn't it?

10 years, under similar cap rules, and because it's a round number and I'm tired of this being so obvious.
20 teams
3 times did the QB make 15% of the cap or more - the last two of Mahomes, and a crazy Matt Ryan year
5 more times did the QB make over 10% of the cap - all five are HOF QBs including two of the five best ever, 3 Brady seasons, Peyton Manning, and Matt Stafford
4 more times were they over 5% - twice more Brady, Jimmy G (same playcaller as the Ryan year), and Cam Newton
The final 8 times are all under 5%, with five of those being 2% or less (btw, including every single Philly SB appearance in this time).

So 60% of teams pay the guy less than 10% of the cap, and 85% of teams less than 15%.

You don't make the SB unless you have:
A) One of the greatest QBs of all time
B) you aren't paying your QB 10% of the cap
C) Kyle Shanahan is calling plays

$60M, even if you structure it super creatively, will be over 10% of the cap. And Dak may put up some regular season numbers, but he is no Mahomes, Brady, or Manning. If he's Matt Ryan, fine. 1 SB appearance in the year he had the best offensive playcaller in the NFL. If you get me Kyle Shanahan to replace McCarthy, I'll live with Dak.

At the end of the day, you need a HOF QB to win a super bowl, or you need a really cheap one. Even better if he's amazing and really cheap.


It's funny because you're making some of my points for me. An Elite QB is incredibly hard to find. And you basically only get one by drafting him. A good cheap QB is hard to find. And you basically only get one by drafting him.

This to me sums it all up.

Even if you think “let’s go the cheap route,” you’re not assured to find one anytime soon. The Dak’s of the world give you a chance every year.

Starting over, could mean you go a decade+ without a chance.

I appreciate the data points on cap %. But a bird in the hand, and being competitive now seems smarter than playing the “what if we COULD draft a good QB”” game.

 

[Instinctive]

I think we have to realize that there's more to the playoff wins/losses than Quarterback play.

That Peyton Manning was 14-13 in the playoffs sort of proves your point.

But that's kind of the reason to let him walk isn't it? If you overpay at QB, it's nearly impossible to build the team you need around the guy.

The only real argument would be if EVERYONE paid that, then all the other values go down by enough that it's an even playing field. But plenty of teams don't pay $50M/yr for a QB.

In my opinion, no.

Again, you're not just going to up and go sign a "winning quarterback." You could draft someone. You'd probably need to get a top 5 pick to get a good one. Even then, you could get the next Trey Lance or Zach Wilson.

Dak is talented enough to win it all. I would certainly consider him in the top 10 of NFL QB's. You're going to have to pay for that. If you don't pay it, you're immediately not good enough to compete. You're rebuilding. Another team is going to be ecstatic to pay for it.

If I were a Cowboys fan, I'd rather they keep him and improve the team around him. Dak made mistakes in the Playoff game vs GB. His turnovers led to two touchdowns. Green Bay scored another 34 points. Dak was able to lead the Dallas offense to 32 points. It's easy to say the turnovers were the reason you lost. What about the other 34 points? Are you sure the guy you replace Dak with leads the offense to 32 points in a playoff game? I'm certainly not.

I think you misunderstood my point.

I wholly agree that the best way to win is to dramatically improve the team around him. He's good enough to win with a great team around him. Almost nobody is so transcendent that they can overcome a just ok team (Mahomes....that's it?).

The problem is if you spend 30+% of the cap on a QB who's good but not transcendent, you aren't building the improved team around him that you're claiming they need. Which I agree, they need!

Look at all the recent SB participants. Hell look at the final four participants. What % of the cap did they spend on QB? (Hint, it's generally not that much).

Certainly, the DREAM is to find a star QB and make a run while he's on the rookie contract. And yeah, it makes perfect sense to say "We want to pay that for our QB." But you're going to have to lose the QB you have. And then hope you find one and repeat the process. There are no good long term answers at QB without paying the guy.

Kansas City had re-worked Mahommes deal going into 2023 so he was making over 50 million, and they won it all. He's an outlier, because he's so amazing. But you can indeed look to the last Superbowl and see the best team paid their QB a lot of money and still found a way to win.

Right. That's what I said.

Believe what you want I guess. But "did they have a highly paid QB?" The answer is a vast majority "no" for conference championship game teams. Which I assume you know, since you avoided the question to reiterate a non sequitur point.

We just disagree. I'd rather contend for a title. This team, I don't think will. And if you blow 50% more than you already do for the same QB they definitely won't.

So yeah they may suck a year or two to find a QB. Oh well. I'm here to win it not go 10-7 or 11-6 and lose all the time.

I'm sorry I didn't go team by team.

Chiefs: 50 million +
Ravens: 50 million+
Lions: Was cheap, promptly got 50 million+
49ers: You got me there, they're still not paying him.

2/4 "final 4" already were paying 50 million plus. Stop me when we've proven you can't go to the SB with a highly paid QB.

Hurts went to the superbowl--getting 50 million plus.
Burrow to the Superbowl--50 million plus.

So while it's a great notion that "We should just do it with a cheap QB." Everyone pays the guys that do it. You're not getting Goff cheap. You're not getting Purdy cheap. There is no proven winner coming on a discount.

You go on to say "So yeah, they may suck a year or two to find a QB." You can't be serious with that. Look at the Bills QB's before Josh Allen. Look at the lengthy list of Browns QB Failures. Look at the Titans QB history since McNair.

"Oh, we'll be bad for 2 years while we find an elite QB." It doesn't work that way. It's THE premium position. An ELITE one is very hard to find. That's why NFL teams are quick to pay them stupid money to keep them.

So lets see how the Lions do now. I'm not making the point about how they get paid and make after, but about how paying them hamstrings you if they aren't that elite. These are year of super bowl with that season's salary (so, weirdly, it means Mahomes 2023 season salary for the 2024 super bowl). I rounded to the nearest %.

'24 Mahomes: 17%
'24 Purdy: 1%
'23 Mahomes: 17%
'23 Hurts: 1%
'22 Burrow: 4%
'22 Stafford: 11%
'21 Mahomes: 2%
'21 Brady: 12%
'20 Mahomes: 2%
'20 Garoppolo: 9%
'19 Brady: 12%
'19 Goff: 4%
'18 Brady: 8%
'18 Wentz (Foles, but Wentz higher salary is what salary matters here): 3%
'17 Brady: 9%
'17 Ryan: 15%
'16 Manning: 12%
'16 Newton: 9%
'15 Brady: 11%
'15 Wilson: 1%

I can go back farther if we need, but that kind of proves the point doesn't it?

10 years, under similar cap rules, and because it's a round number and I'm tired of this being so obvious.
20 teams
3 times did the QB make 15% of the cap or more - the last two of Mahomes, and a crazy Matt Ryan year
5 more times did the QB make over 10% of the cap - all five are HOF QBs including two of the five best ever, 3 Brady seasons, Peyton Manning, and Matt Stafford
4 more times were they over 5% - twice more Brady, Jimmy G (same playcaller as the Ryan year), and Cam Newton
The final 8 times are all under 5%, with five of those being 2% or less (btw, including every single Philly SB appearance in this time).

So 60% of teams pay the guy less than 10% of the cap, and 85% of teams less than 15%.

You don't make the SB unless you have:
A) One of the greatest QBs of all time
B) you aren't paying your QB 10% of the cap
C) Kyle Shanahan is calling plays

$60M, even if you structure it super creatively, will be over 10% of the cap. And Dak may put up some regular season numbers, but he is no Mahomes, Brady, or Manning. If he's Matt Ryan, fine. 1 SB appearance in the year he had the best offensive playcaller in the NFL. If you get me Kyle Shanahan to replace McCarthy, I'll live with Dak.

At the end of the day, you need a HOF QB to win a super bowl, or you need a really cheap one. Even better if he's amazing and really cheap.


It's funny because you're making some of my points for me. An Elite QB is incredibly hard to find. And you basically only get one by drafting him. A good cheap QB is hard to find. And you basically only get one by drafting him.

This to me sums it all up.

Even if you think “let’s go the cheap route,” you’re not assured to find one anytime soon. The Dak’s of the world give you a chance every year.

Starting over, could mean you go a decade+ without a chance.

I appreciate the data points on cap %. But a bird in the hand, and being competitive now seems smarter than playing the “what if we COULD draft a good QB”” game.

I guess. I just think "being competitive now" is a mirage. They're not competitive. And they won't be paying him even more. ESPECIALLY since the ownership is more concerned with real estate investment and won't play games to keep the cap numbers down.

 

[dickey moe]

I think we have to realize that there's more to the playoff wins/losses than Quarterback play.

That Peyton Manning was 14-13 in the playoffs sort of proves your point.

But that's kind of the reason to let him walk isn't it? If you overpay at QB, it's nearly impossible to build the team you need around the guy.

The only real argument would be if EVERYONE paid that, then all the other values go down by enough that it's an even playing field. But plenty of teams don't pay $50M/yr for a QB.

In my opinion, no.

Again, you're not just going to up and go sign a "winning quarterback." You could draft someone. You'd probably need to get a top 5 pick to get a good one. Even then, you could get the next Trey Lance or Zach Wilson.

Dak is talented enough to win it all. I would certainly consider him in the top 10 of NFL QB's. You're going to have to pay for that. If you don't pay it, you're immediately not good enough to compete. You're rebuilding. Another team is going to be ecstatic to pay for it.

If I were a Cowboys fan, I'd rather they keep him and improve the team around him. Dak made mistakes in the Playoff game vs GB. His turnovers led to two touchdowns. Green Bay scored another 34 points. Dak was able to lead the Dallas offense to 32 points. It's easy to say the turnovers were the reason you lost. What about the other 34 points? Are you sure the guy you replace Dak with leads the offense to 32 points in a playoff game? I'm certainly not.

I think you misunderstood my point.

I wholly agree that the best way to win is to dramatically improve the team around him. He's good enough to win with a great team around him. Almost nobody is so transcendent that they can overcome a just ok team (Mahomes....that's it?).

The problem is if you spend 30+% of the cap on a QB who's good but not transcendent, you aren't building the improved team around him that you're claiming they need. Which I agree, they need!

Look at all the recent SB participants. Hell look at the final four participants. What % of the cap did they spend on QB? (Hint, it's generally not that much).

Certainly, the DREAM is to find a star QB and make a run while he's on the rookie contract. And yeah, it makes perfect sense to say "We want to pay that for our QB." But you're going to have to lose the QB you have. And then hope you find one and repeat the process. There are no good long term answers at QB without paying the guy.

Kansas City had re-worked Mahommes deal going into 2023 so he was making over 50 million, and they won it all. He's an outlier, because he's so amazing. But you can indeed look to the last Superbowl and see the best team paid their QB a lot of money and still found a way to win.

Right. That's what I said.

Believe what you want I guess. But "did they have a highly paid QB?" The answer is a vast majority "no" for conference championship game teams. Which I assume you know, since you avoided the question to reiterate a non sequitur point.

We just disagree. I'd rather contend for a title. This team, I don't think will. And if you blow 50% more than you already do for the same QB they definitely won't.

So yeah they may suck a year or two to find a QB. Oh well. I'm here to win it not go 10-7 or 11-6 and lose all the time.

I'm sorry I didn't go team by team.

Chiefs: 50 million +
Ravens: 50 million+
Lions: Was cheap, promptly got 50 million+
49ers: You got me there, they're still not paying him.

2/4 "final 4" already were paying 50 million plus. Stop me when we've proven you can't go to the SB with a highly paid QB.

Hurts went to the superbowl--getting 50 million plus.
Burrow to the Superbowl--50 million plus.

So while it's a great notion that "We should just do it with a cheap QB." Everyone pays the guys that do it. You're not getting Goff cheap. You're not getting Purdy cheap. There is no proven winner coming on a discount.

You go on to say "So yeah, they may suck a year or two to find a QB." You can't be serious with that. Look at the Bills QB's before Josh Allen. Look at the lengthy list of Browns QB Failures. Look at the Titans QB history since McNair.

Since McNair retired in 2008, the Titans have 3 playoff wins vs. 4 playoff wins for the Cowboys, but the Titans made it to a conference championship game with Tannehill. Just sayin'...

 

[Snotbubbles]

]

I think we have to realize that there's more to the playoff wins/losses than Quarterback play.

That Peyton Manning was 14-13 in the playoffs sort of proves your point.

But that's kind of the reason to let him walk isn't it? If you overpay at QB, it's nearly impossible to build the team you need around the guy.

The only real argument would be if EVERYONE paid that, then all the other values go down by enough that it's an even playing field. But plenty of teams don't pay $50M/yr for a QB.

In my opinion, no.

Again, you're not just going to up and go sign a "winning quarterback." You could draft someone. You'd probably need to get a top 5 pick to get a good one. Even then, you could get the next Trey Lance or Zach Wilson.

Dak is talented enough to win it all. I would certainly consider him in the top 10 of NFL QB's. You're going to have to pay for that. If you don't pay it, you're immediately not good enough to compete. You're rebuilding. Another team is going to be ecstatic to pay for it.

If I were a Cowboys fan, I'd rather they keep him and improve the team around him. Dak made mistakes in the Playoff game vs GB. His turnovers led to two touchdowns. Green Bay scored another 34 points. Dak was able to lead the Dallas offense to 32 points. It's easy to say the turnovers were the reason you lost. What about the other 34 points? Are you sure the guy you replace Dak with leads the offense to 32 points in a playoff game? I'm certainly not.

I think you misunderstood my point.

I wholly agree that the best way to win is to dramatically improve the team around him. He's good enough to win with a great team around him. Almost nobody is so transcendent that they can overcome a just ok team (Mahomes....that's it?).

The problem is if you spend 30+% of the cap on a QB who's good but not transcendent, you aren't building the improved team around him that you're claiming they need. Which I agree, they need!

Look at all the recent SB participants. Hell look at the final four participants. What % of the cap did they spend on QB? (Hint, it's generally not that much).

Certainly, the DREAM is to find a star QB and make a run while he's on the rookie contract. And yeah, it makes perfect sense to say "We want to pay that for our QB." But you're going to have to lose the QB you have. And then hope you find one and repeat the process. There are no good long term answers at QB without paying the guy.

Kansas City had re-worked Mahommes deal going into 2023 so he was making over 50 million, and they won it all. He's an outlier, because he's so amazing. But you can indeed look to the last Superbowl and see the best team paid their QB a lot of money and still found a way to win.

Right. That's what I said.

Believe what you want I guess. But "did they have a highly paid QB?" The answer is a vast majority "no" for conference championship game teams. Which I assume you know, since you avoided the question to reiterate a non sequitur point.

We just disagree. I'd rather contend for a title. This team, I don't think will. And if you blow 50% more than you already do for the same QB they definitely won't.

So yeah they may suck a year or two to find a QB. Oh well. I'm here to win it not go 10-7 or 11-6 and lose all the time.

I'm sorry I didn't go team by team.

Chiefs: 50 million +
Ravens: 50 million+
Lions: Was cheap, promptly got 50 million+
49ers: You got me there, they're still not paying him.

2/4 "final 4" already were paying 50 million plus. Stop me when we've proven you can't go to the SB with a highly paid QB.

Hurts went to the superbowl--getting 50 million plus.
Burrow to the Superbowl--50 million plus.

So while it's a great notion that "We should just do it with a cheap QB." Everyone pays the guys that do it. You're not getting Goff cheap. You're not getting Purdy cheap. There is no proven winner coming on a discount.

You go on to say "So yeah, they may suck a year or two to find a QB." You can't be serious with that. Look at the Bills QB's before Josh Allen. Look at the lengthy list of Browns QB Failures. Look at the Titans QB history since McNair.

"Oh, we'll be bad for 2 years while we find an elite QB." It doesn't work that way. It's THE premium position. An ELITE one is very hard to find. That's why NFL teams are quick to pay them stupid money to keep them.

So lets see how the Lions do now. I'm not making the point about how they get paid and make after, but about how paying them hamstrings you if they aren't that elite. These are year of super bowl with that season's salary (so, weirdly, it means Mahomes 2023 season salary for the 2024 super bowl). I rounded to the nearest %.

'24 Mahomes: 17%
'24 Purdy: 1%
'23 Mahomes: 17%
'23 Hurts: 1%
'22 Burrow: 4%
'22 Stafford: 11%
'21 Mahomes: 2%
'21 Brady: 12%
'20 Mahomes: 2%
'20 Garoppolo: 9%
'19 Brady: 12%
'19 Goff: 4%
'18 Brady: 8%
'18 Wentz (Foles, but Wentz higher salary is what salary matters here): 3%
'17 Brady: 9%
'17 Ryan: 15%
'16 Manning: 12%
'16 Newton: 9%
'15 Brady: 11%
'15 Wilson: 1%

I can go back farther if we need, but that kind of proves the point doesn't it?

10 years, under similar cap rules, and because it's a round number and I'm tired of this being so obvious.
20 teams
3 times did the QB make 15% of the cap or more - the last two of Mahomes, and a crazy Matt Ryan year
5 more times did the QB make over 10% of the cap - all five are HOF QBs including two of the five best ever, 3 Brady seasons, Peyton Manning, and Matt Stafford
4 more times were they over 5% - twice more Brady, Jimmy G (same playcaller as the Ryan year), and Cam Newton
The final 8 times are all under 5%, with five of those being 2% or less (btw, including every single Philly SB appearance in this time).

So 60% of teams pay the guy less than 10% of the cap, and 85% of teams less than 15%.

You don't make the SB unless you have:
A) One of the greatest QBs of all time
B) you aren't paying your QB 10% of the cap
C) Kyle Shanahan is calling plays

$60M, even if you structure it super creatively, will be over 10% of the cap. And Dak may put up some regular season numbers, but he is no Mahomes, Brady, or Manning. If he's Matt Ryan, fine. 1 SB appearance in the year he had the best offensive playcaller in the NFL. If you get me Kyle Shanahan to replace McCarthy, I'll live with Dak.

At the end of the day, you need a HOF QB to win a super bowl, or you need a really cheap one. Even better if he's amazing and really cheap.


It's funny because you're making some of my points for me. An Elite QB is incredibly hard to find. And you basically only get one by drafting him. A good cheap QB is hard to find. And you basically only get one by drafting him.

Nice analysis, it would help if you put all the cap% of QBs in 2024.

3 Times QBs in this group got to a SB
01. Deshaun Watson 21.9%
02. Dak Prescott 21.1%
03. Matt Stafford 19.3%
04. Daniel Jones 18.3%
05. Kyler Murray 18.1%

5 times QBs in this group got to a SB
06. Patrick Mahomes 14.7%
07. Lamar Jackson 12.7%
08. Josh Allen 11.9%
09. Joe Burrow 11.2%
10. Jared Goff 10.6%
11. Geno Smith 10.1%

4 times QBs in this group got to a SB
12. Kirk Cousins 9.6
13. Tua Tagovailoa 9.1%
14. Justin Herbert 7.4%
15. Aaron Rodgers 6.6%
16. Trevor Lawrence 5.6%
17. Jalen Hurts 5.2%

8 times QBs in this group got to a SB
18. Derek Carr 4.9%
19. Bryce Young 3.3%
20. CJ Stroud 3.2%
22. Gardner Minshew 3.1%
23. Anthony Richardson 3.0%
24. Jacoby Brissett 3.0%
25. Baker Mayfield 2.7%
26. Jarrett Stidham 2.7%
27. Jayden Daniels 2.6%
28. Sam Darnold 1.9%
29. Justin Fields 1.3%
30. Will Levis 0.8%
31. Brock Purdy 0.4%
32. Caleb Williams 0.3%

What I take from your analysis is that paying somewhere between 5-10% of the cap is probably the sweet spot for SB appearances. I look at the under 5% group and think maybe 1 or 2 have a chance at a SB appearance this year. But that 5-10% group probably has a good 7 or 8 good possibilities.

 

[STEADYMOBBIN 22]

I think we have to realize that there's more to the playoff wins/losses than Quarterback play.

That Peyton Manning was 14-13 in the playoffs sort of proves your point.

But that's kind of the reason to let him walk isn't it? If you overpay at QB, it's nearly impossible to build the team you need around the guy.

The only real argument would be if EVERYONE paid that, then all the other values go down by enough that it's an even playing field. But plenty of teams don't pay $50M/yr for a QB.

In my opinion, no.

Again, you're not just going to up and go sign a "winning quarterback." You could draft someone. You'd probably need to get a top 5 pick to get a good one. Even then, you could get the next Trey Lance or Zach Wilson.

Dak is talented enough to win it all. I would certainly consider him in the top 10 of NFL QB's. You're going to have to pay for that. If you don't pay it, you're immediately not good enough to compete. You're rebuilding. Another team is going to be ecstatic to pay for it.

If I were a Cowboys fan, I'd rather they keep him and improve the team around him. Dak made mistakes in the Playoff game vs GB. His turnovers led to two touchdowns. Green Bay scored another 34 points. Dak was able to lead the Dallas offense to 32 points. It's easy to say the turnovers were the reason you lost. What about the other 34 points? Are you sure the guy you replace Dak with leads the offense to 32 points in a playoff game? I'm certainly not.

I think you misunderstood my point.

I wholly agree that the best way to win is to dramatically improve the team around him. He's good enough to win with a great team around him. Almost nobody is so transcendent that they can overcome a just ok team (Mahomes....that's it?).

The problem is if you spend 30+% of the cap on a QB who's good but not transcendent, you aren't building the improved team around him that you're claiming they need. Which I agree, they need!

Look at all the recent SB participants. Hell look at the final four participants. What % of the cap did they spend on QB? (Hint, it's generally not that much).

Certainly, the DREAM is to find a star QB and make a run while he's on the rookie contract. And yeah, it makes perfect sense to say "We want to pay that for our QB." But you're going to have to lose the QB you have. And then hope you find one and repeat the process. There are no good long term answers at QB without paying the guy.

Kansas City had re-worked Mahommes deal going into 2023 so he was making over 50 million, and they won it all. He's an outlier, because he's so amazing. But you can indeed look to the last Superbowl and see the best team paid their QB a lot of money and still found a way to win.

Right. That's what I said.

Believe what you want I guess. But "did they have a highly paid QB?" The answer is a vast majority "no" for conference championship game teams. Which I assume you know, since you avoided the question to reiterate a non sequitur point.

We just disagree. I'd rather contend for a title. This team, I don't think will. And if you blow 50% more than you already do for the same QB they definitely won't.

So yeah they may suck a year or two to find a QB. Oh well. I'm here to win it not go 10-7 or 11-6 and lose all the time.

I'm sorry I didn't go team by team.

Chiefs: 50 million +
Ravens: 50 million+
Lions: Was cheap, promptly got 50 million+
49ers: You got me there, they're still not paying him.

2/4 "final 4" already were paying 50 million plus. Stop me when we've proven you can't go to the SB with a highly paid QB.

Hurts went to the superbowl--getting 50 million plus.
Burrow to the Superbowl--50 million plus.

So while it's a great notion that "We should just do it with a cheap QB." Everyone pays the guys that do it. You're not getting Goff cheap. You're not getting Purdy cheap. There is no proven winner coming on a discount.

You go on to say "So yeah, they may suck a year or two to find a QB." You can't be serious with that. Look at the Bills QB's before Josh Allen. Look at the lengthy list of Browns QB Failures. Look at the Titans QB history since McNair.

"Oh, we'll be bad for 2 years while we find an elite QB." It doesn't work that way. It's THE premium position. An ELITE one is very hard to find. That's why NFL teams are quick to pay them stupid money to keep them.

So lets see how the Lions do now. I'm not making the point about how they get paid and make after, but about how paying them hamstrings you if they aren't that elite. These are year of super bowl with that season's salary (so, weirdly, it means Mahomes 2023 season salary for the 2024 super bowl). I rounded to the nearest %.

'24 Mahomes: 17%
'24 Purdy: 1%
'23 Mahomes: 17%
'23 Hurts: 1%
'22 Burrow: 4%
'22 Stafford: 11%
'21 Mahomes: 2%
'21 Brady: 12%
'20 Mahomes: 2%
'20 Garoppolo: 9%
'19 Brady: 12%
'19 Goff: 4%
'18 Brady: 8%
'18 Wentz (Foles, but Wentz higher salary is what salary matters here): 3%
'17 Brady: 9%
'17 Ryan: 15%
'16 Manning: 12%
'16 Newton: 9%
'15 Brady: 11%
'15 Wilson: 1%

I can go back farther if we need, but that kind of proves the point doesn't it?

10 years, under similar cap rules, and because it's a round number and I'm tired of this being so obvious.
20 teams
3 times did the QB make 15% of the cap or more - the last two of Mahomes, and a crazy Matt Ryan year
5 more times did the QB make over 10% of the cap - all five are HOF QBs including two of the five best ever, 3 Brady seasons, Peyton Manning, and Matt Stafford
4 more times were they over 5% - twice more Brady, Jimmy G (same playcaller as the Ryan year), and Cam Newton
The final 8 times are all under 5%, with five of those being 2% or less (btw, including every single Philly SB appearance in this time).

So 60% of teams pay the guy less than 10% of the cap, and 85% of teams less than 15%.

You don't make the SB unless you have:
A) One of the greatest QBs of all time
B) you aren't paying your QB 10% of the cap
C) Kyle Shanahan is calling plays

$60M, even if you structure it super creatively, will be over 10% of the cap. And Dak may put up some regular season numbers, but he is no Mahomes, Brady, or Manning. If he's Matt Ryan, fine. 1 SB appearance in the year he had the best offensive playcaller in the NFL. If you get me Kyle Shanahan to replace McCarthy, I'll live with Dak.

At the end of the day, you need a HOF QB to win a super bowl, or you need a really cheap one. Even better if he's amazing and really cheap.


It's funny because you're making some of my points for me. An Elite QB is incredibly hard to find. And you basically only get one by drafting him. A good cheap QB is hard to find. And you basically only get one by drafting him.

This to me sums it all up.

Even if you think “let’s go the cheap route,” you’re not assured to find one anytime soon. The Dak’s of the world give you a chance every year.

Starting over, could mean you go a decade+ without a chance.

I appreciate the data points on cap %. But a bird in the hand, and being competitive now seems smarter than playing the “what if we COULD draft a good QB”” game.

You do you. I would trade/dump Dak and use all that money on defense and Oline. Draft nothing but OL/DE/DEF/RB/TE and road grade the league with a average QB who doesnt make mistakes.

The Cowboys could have done this with Dak but they were more interested in being a high flying offense and turning their 4th round former running QB into the next Romo (and they have apparently succeeded.) They surrounded him with weapons and inflated his value.

You might have this in Trey Lance. We are likely to find out next season.

 

[Instinctive]

]

I think we have to realize that there's more to the playoff wins/losses than Quarterback play.

That Peyton Manning was 14-13 in the playoffs sort of proves your point.

But that's kind of the reason to let him walk isn't it? If you overpay at QB, it's nearly impossible to build the team you need around the guy.

The only real argument would be if EVERYONE paid that, then all the other values go down by enough that it's an even playing field. But plenty of teams don't pay $50M/yr for a QB.

In my opinion, no.

Again, you're not just going to up and go sign a "winning quarterback." You could draft someone. You'd probably need to get a top 5 pick to get a good one. Even then, you could get the next Trey Lance or Zach Wilson.

Dak is talented enough to win it all. I would certainly consider him in the top 10 of NFL QB's. You're going to have to pay for that. If you don't pay it, you're immediately not good enough to compete. You're rebuilding. Another team is going to be ecstatic to pay for it.

If I were a Cowboys fan, I'd rather they keep him and improve the team around him. Dak made mistakes in the Playoff game vs GB. His turnovers led to two touchdowns. Green Bay scored another 34 points. Dak was able to lead the Dallas offense to 32 points. It's easy to say the turnovers were the reason you lost. What about the other 34 points? Are you sure the guy you replace Dak with leads the offense to 32 points in a playoff game? I'm certainly not.

I think you misunderstood my point.

I wholly agree that the best way to win is to dramatically improve the team around him. He's good enough to win with a great team around him. Almost nobody is so transcendent that they can overcome a just ok team (Mahomes....that's it?).

The problem is if you spend 30+% of the cap on a QB who's good but not transcendent, you aren't building the improved team around him that you're claiming they need. Which I agree, they need!

Look at all the recent SB participants. Hell look at the final four participants. What % of the cap did they spend on QB? (Hint, it's generally not that much).

Certainly, the DREAM is to find a star QB and make a run while he's on the rookie contract. And yeah, it makes perfect sense to say "We want to pay that for our QB." But you're going to have to lose the QB you have. And then hope you find one and repeat the process. There are no good long term answers at QB without paying the guy.

Kansas City had re-worked Mahommes deal going into 2023 so he was making over 50 million, and they won it all. He's an outlier, because he's so amazing. But you can indeed look to the last Superbowl and see the best team paid their QB a lot of money and still found a way to win.

Right. That's what I said.

Believe what you want I guess. But "did they have a highly paid QB?" The answer is a vast majority "no" for conference championship game teams. Which I assume you know, since you avoided the question to reiterate a non sequitur point.

We just disagree. I'd rather contend for a title. This team, I don't think will. And if you blow 50% more than you already do for the same QB they definitely won't.

So yeah they may suck a year or two to find a QB. Oh well. I'm here to win it not go 10-7 or 11-6 and lose all the time.

I'm sorry I didn't go team by team.

Chiefs: 50 million +
Ravens: 50 million+
Lions: Was cheap, promptly got 50 million+
49ers: You got me there, they're still not paying him.

2/4 "final 4" already were paying 50 million plus. Stop me when we've proven you can't go to the SB with a highly paid QB.

Hurts went to the superbowl--getting 50 million plus.
Burrow to the Superbowl--50 million plus.

So while it's a great notion that "We should just do it with a cheap QB." Everyone pays the guys that do it. You're not getting Goff cheap. You're not getting Purdy cheap. There is no proven winner coming on a discount.

You go on to say "So yeah, they may suck a year or two to find a QB." You can't be serious with that. Look at the Bills QB's before Josh Allen. Look at the lengthy list of Browns QB Failures. Look at the Titans QB history since McNair.

"Oh, we'll be bad for 2 years while we find an elite QB." It doesn't work that way. It's THE premium position. An ELITE one is very hard to find. That's why NFL teams are quick to pay them stupid money to keep them.

So lets see how the Lions do now. I'm not making the point about how they get paid and make after, but about how paying them hamstrings you if they aren't that elite. These are year of super bowl with that season's salary (so, weirdly, it means Mahomes 2023 season salary for the 2024 super bowl). I rounded to the nearest %.

'24 Mahomes: 17%
'24 Purdy: 1%
'23 Mahomes: 17%
'23 Hurts: 1%
'22 Burrow: 4%
'22 Stafford: 11%
'21 Mahomes: 2%
'21 Brady: 12%
'20 Mahomes: 2%
'20 Garoppolo: 9%
'19 Brady: 12%
'19 Goff: 4%
'18 Brady: 8%
'18 Wentz (Foles, but Wentz higher salary is what salary matters here): 3%
'17 Brady: 9%
'17 Ryan: 15%
'16 Manning: 12%
'16 Newton: 9%
'15 Brady: 11%
'15 Wilson: 1%

I can go back farther if we need, but that kind of proves the point doesn't it?

10 years, under similar cap rules, and because it's a round number and I'm tired of this being so obvious.
20 teams
3 times did the QB make 15% of the cap or more - the last two of Mahomes, and a crazy Matt Ryan year
5 more times did the QB make over 10% of the cap - all five are HOF QBs including two of the five best ever, 3 Brady seasons, Peyton Manning, and Matt Stafford
4 more times were they over 5% - twice more Brady, Jimmy G (same playcaller as the Ryan year), and Cam Newton
The final 8 times are all under 5%, with five of those being 2% or less (btw, including every single Philly SB appearance in this time).

So 60% of teams pay the guy less than 10% of the cap, and 85% of teams less than 15%.

You don't make the SB unless you have:
A) One of the greatest QBs of all time
B) you aren't paying your QB 10% of the cap
C) Kyle Shanahan is calling plays

$60M, even if you structure it super creatively, will be over 10% of the cap. And Dak may put up some regular season numbers, but he is no Mahomes, Brady, or Manning. If he's Matt Ryan, fine. 1 SB appearance in the year he had the best offensive playcaller in the NFL. If you get me Kyle Shanahan to replace McCarthy, I'll live with Dak.

At the end of the day, you need a HOF QB to win a super bowl, or you need a really cheap one. Even better if he's amazing and really cheap.


It's funny because you're making some of my points for me. An Elite QB is incredibly hard to find. And you basically only get one by drafting him. A good cheap QB is hard to find. And you basically only get one by drafting him.

Nice analysis, it would help if you put all the cap% of QBs in 2024.

3 Times QBs in this group got to a SB
01. Deshaun Watson 21.9%
02. Dak Prescott 21.1%
03. Matt Stafford 19.3%
04. Daniel Jones 18.3%
05. Kyler Murray 18.1%

5 times QBs in this group got to a SB
06. Patrick Mahomes 14.7%
07. Lamar Jackson 12.7%
08. Josh Allen 11.9%
09. Joe Burrow 11.2%
10. Jared Goff 10.6%
11. Geno Smith 10.1%

4 times QBs in this group got to a SB
12. Kirk Cousins 9.6
13. Tua Tagovailoa 9.1%
14. Justin Herbert 7.4%
15. Aaron Rodgers 6.6%
16. Trevor Lawrence 5.6%
17. Jalen Hurts 5.2%

8 times QBs in this group got to a SB
18. Derek Carr 4.9%
19. Bryce Young 3.3%
20. CJ Stroud 3.2%
22. Gardner Minshew 3.1%
23. Anthony Richardson 3.0%
24. Jacoby Brissett 3.0%
25. Baker Mayfield 2.7%
26. Jarrett Stidham 2.7%
27. Jayden Daniels 2.6%
28. Sam Darnold 1.9%
29. Justin Fields 1.3%
30. Will Levis 0.8%
31. Brock Purdy 0.4%
32. Caleb Williams 0.3%

What I take from your analysis is that paying somewhere between 5-10% of the cap is probably the sweet spot for SB appearances. I look at the under 5% group and think maybe 1 or 2 have a chance at a SB appearance this year. But that 5-10% group probably has a good 7 or 8 good possibilities.

Yes, but: nobody in that top group yells HOF or possibly GOAT to me, and all of them would be the highest cap % to ever make one. Stafford I think is a HOFer but could not and that wouldn't shock me. And when he was able to take a team there, his hit was much lower.

If I look at it for this year, here are teams I think are legit SB contenders under the rules my very quick analysis revealed:

1. KC (Mahomes ia HOF)
2. HOU (Stroud is good and very cheap)
3. SF (Purdy is good and very cheap)
4. PHI (Hurts is good and very cheap)
5. NYJ (Rodgers is both HOF quality AND not overly costly)


I'd consider these as possible:
6. JAC (Lawrence is good and very cheap)
7. SD (Herbert is very good and cheap enough)
8. BAL (if you think Lamar is HOF quality)

Now if you want to tell me you think McCarthy is the best playcaller in the NFL or that Dak is one of the 5-10 best QBs of all time, I'll admit paying him 20+% of the cap can work. I don't think either of those things is true.

 

[Snotbubbles]

I think we have to realize that there's more to the playoff wins/losses than Quarterback play.

That Peyton Manning was 14-13 in the playoffs sort of proves your point.

But that's kind of the reason to let him walk isn't it? If you overpay at QB, it's nearly impossible to build the team you need around the guy.

The only real argument would be if EVERYONE paid that, then all the other values go down by enough that it's an even playing field. But plenty of teams don't pay $50M/yr for a QB.

In my opinion, no.

Again, you're not just going to up and go sign a "winning quarterback." You could draft someone. You'd probably need to get a top 5 pick to get a good one. Even then, you could get the next Trey Lance or Zach Wilson.

Dak is talented enough to win it all. I would certainly consider him in the top 10 of NFL QB's. You're going to have to pay for that. If you don't pay it, you're immediately not good enough to compete. You're rebuilding. Another team is going to be ecstatic to pay for it.

If I were a Cowboys fan, I'd rather they keep him and improve the team around him. Dak made mistakes in the Playoff game vs GB. His turnovers led to two touchdowns. Green Bay scored another 34 points. Dak was able to lead the Dallas offense to 32 points. It's easy to say the turnovers were the reason you lost. What about the other 34 points? Are you sure the guy you replace Dak with leads the offense to 32 points in a playoff game? I'm certainly not.

I think you misunderstood my point.

I wholly agree that the best way to win is to dramatically improve the team around him. He's good enough to win with a great team around him. Almost nobody is so transcendent that they can overcome a just ok team (Mahomes....that's it?).

The problem is if you spend 30+% of the cap on a QB who's good but not transcendent, you aren't building the improved team around him that you're claiming they need. Which I agree, they need!

Look at all the recent SB participants. Hell look at the final four participants. What % of the cap did they spend on QB? (Hint, it's generally not that much).

Jalen Hurts just signed a $51M AAV contract. His cap hit % going forward are:

2024: 5.2%
2025: 8.4%
2026: 11.2%
2027: 13.3%

Just structure the contract so the cap hits are low for the next 4 years.

So now you're saying "pay him now to be good and be ok sucking later when you have a ton of dead cap." That's a different argument.

I'm saying 3 years in professional sports are like dog years. The Cowboys are SB contenders, you don't get rid of your QB, you pay him and structure it so the cap hits are low for the next 3-4 years and then re-evaluate. What you don't do is cut ties to get someone cheaper and hope the guy you replace him with can fill his shoes.

Please don't tell me Trey Lance, he was on a much better offensive team, with a coach who is considered a QB guru and he stunk, he's not the guy, but I really hope Jerry Jones thinks like some posters on this board because if the Cowboys get rid of Dak for Lance or some equivalent, not only do they cease to be SB contenders, but they cease to be a threat in the NFC East and that's quite alright with me.

 

[Snotbubbles]

Yes, but: nobody in that top group yells HOF or possibly GOAT to me, and all of them would be the highest cap % to ever make one. Stafford I think is a HOFer but could not and that wouldn't shock me. And when he was able to take a team there, his hit was much lower.

If I look at it for this year, here are teams I think are legit SB contenders under the rules my very quick analysis revealed:

1. KC (Mahomes ia HOF)
2. HOU (Stroud is good and very cheap)
3. SF (Purdy is good and very cheap)
4. PHI (Hurts is good and very cheap)
5. NYJ (Rodgers is both HOF quality AND not overly costly)


I'd consider these as possible:
6. JAC (Lawrence is good and very cheap)
7. SD (Herbert is very good and cheap enough)
8. BAL (if you think Lamar is HOF quality)

Now if you want to tell me you think McCarthy is the best playcaller in the NFL or that Dak is one of the 5-10 best QBs of all time, I'll admit paying him 20+% of the cap can work. I don't think either of those things is true.

I think you're missing the point here. The point is every QB in this group, sans Geno Smith is a threat to lead their team to a SB.

5 times QBs in this group got to a SB
06. Patrick Mahomes 14.7%
07. Lamar Jackson 12.7%
08. Josh Allen 11.9%
09. Joe Burrow 11.2%
10. Jared Goff 10.6%
11. Geno Smith 10.1%

The reality is, if you structure Dak contract correctly, you can have his cap hit in this group:

4 times QBs in this group got to a SB
12. Kirk Cousins 9.6
13. Tua Tagovailoa 9.1%
14. Justin Herbert 7.4%
15. Aaron Rodgers 6.6%
16. Trevor Lawrence 5.6%
17. Jalen Hurts 5.2%

You just seem to assume that paying Dak $55M AAVwould put him in this group:

3 Times QBs in this group got to a SB
01. Deshaun Watson 21.9%
02. Dak Prescott 21.1%
03. Matt Stafford 19.3%
04. Daniel Jones 18.3%
05. Kyler Murray 18.1%

But that's not the case.

 

[Instinctive]

I think we have to realize that there's more to the playoff wins/losses than Quarterback play.

That Peyton Manning was 14-13 in the playoffs sort of proves your point.

But that's kind of the reason to let him walk isn't it? If you overpay at QB, it's nearly impossible to build the team you need around the guy.

The only real argument would be if EVERYONE paid that, then all the other values go down by enough that it's an even playing field. But plenty of teams don't pay $50M/yr for a QB.

In my opinion, no.

Again, you're not just going to up and go sign a "winning quarterback." You could draft someone. You'd probably need to get a top 5 pick to get a good one. Even then, you could get the next Trey Lance or Zach Wilson.

Dak is talented enough to win it all. I would certainly consider him in the top 10 of NFL QB's. You're going to have to pay for that. If you don't pay it, you're immediately not good enough to compete. You're rebuilding. Another team is going to be ecstatic to pay for it.

If I were a Cowboys fan, I'd rather they keep him and improve the team around him. Dak made mistakes in the Playoff game vs GB. His turnovers led to two touchdowns. Green Bay scored another 34 points. Dak was able to lead the Dallas offense to 32 points. It's easy to say the turnovers were the reason you lost. What about the other 34 points? Are you sure the guy you replace Dak with leads the offense to 32 points in a playoff game? I'm certainly not.

I think you misunderstood my point.

I wholly agree that the best way to win is to dramatically improve the team around him. He's good enough to win with a great team around him. Almost nobody is so transcendent that they can overcome a just ok team (Mahomes....that's it?).

The problem is if you spend 30+% of the cap on a QB who's good but not transcendent, you aren't building the improved team around him that you're claiming they need. Which I agree, they need!

Look at all the recent SB participants. Hell look at the final four participants. What % of the cap did they spend on QB? (Hint, it's generally not that much).

Jalen Hurts just signed a $51M AAV contract. His cap hit % going forward are:

2024: 5.2%
2025: 8.4%
2026: 11.2%
2027: 13.3%

Just structure the contract so the cap hits are low for the next 4 years.

So now you're saying "pay him now to be good and be ok sucking later when you have a ton of dead cap." That's a different argument.

I'm saying 3 years in professional sports are like dog years. The Cowboys are SB contenders, you don't get rid of your QB, you pay him and structure it so the cap hits are low for the next 3-4 years and then re-evaluate. What you don't do is cut ties to get someone cheaper and hope the guy you replace him with can fill his shoes.

Please don't tell me Trey Lance, he was on a much better offensive team, with a coach who is considered a QB guru and he stunk, he's not the guy, but I really hope Jerry Jones thinks like some posters on this board because if the Cowboys get rid of Dak for Lance or some equivalent, not only do they cease to be SB contenders, but they cease to be a threat in the NFC East and that's quite alright with me.

I don't think you understand what I'm saying, because your tone implies you disagree with me but your words agree. They are not SB contenders with Dak at 20% of the cap. They would be a wild aberration if they made a super bowl. Nobody has ever made one paying 20% of the cap to a single player. Ever. (maybe I missed one but I did a decent scan).

IF they structured his cap hits to be low, I TOTALLY agree. Pay him $70M a year of cash but get the cap hit down around 5-8%. But that isn't what is on the table. Dallas won't spend more than ~$200M/year in cash, which severely limits how they can play with the cap. It's a totally different conversation. If the owner was willing to actually manage the cap intelligently, we'd be in a totally different place and I'd be way more excited about the team's prospects.

My stance is very clear:
1. Dak is plenty good to be a SB QB on a great team.
2. You cannot make a team of that quality with him at 20% of the cap. I don't think you can do it with him at 15% of the cap without a wildly outlier amount of hits strung together in other areas.

 

[Instinctive]

Yes, but: nobody in that top group yells HOF or possibly GOAT to me, and all of them would be the highest cap % to ever make one. Stafford I think is a HOFer but could not and that wouldn't shock me. And when he was able to take a team there, his hit was much lower.

If I look at it for this year, here are teams I think are legit SB contenders under the rules my very quick analysis revealed:

1. KC (Mahomes ia HOF)
2. HOU (Stroud is good and very cheap)
3. SF (Purdy is good and very cheap)
4. PHI (Hurts is good and very cheap)
5. NYJ (Rodgers is both HOF quality AND not overly costly)


I'd consider these as possible:
6. JAC (Lawrence is good and very cheap)
7. SD (Herbert is very good and cheap enough)
8. BAL (if you think Lamar is HOF quality)

Now if you want to tell me you think McCarthy is the best playcaller in the NFL or that Dak is one of the 5-10 best QBs of all time, I'll admit paying him 20+% of the cap can work. I don't think either of those things is true.

I think you're missing the point here. The point is every QB in this group, sans Geno Smith is a threat to lead their team to a SB.

5 times QBs in this group got to a SB
06. Patrick Mahomes 14.7%
07. Lamar Jackson 12.7%
08. Josh Allen 11.9%
09. Joe Burrow 11.2%
10. Jared Goff 10.6%
11. Geno Smith 10.1%

The reality is, if you structure Dak contract correctly, you can have his cap hit in this group:

4 times QBs in this group got to a SB
12. Kirk Cousins 9.6
13. Tua Tagovailoa 9.1%
14. Justin Herbert 7.4%
15. Aaron Rodgers 6.6%
16. Trevor Lawrence 5.6%
17. Jalen Hurts 5.2%

You just seem to assume that paying Dak $55M AAVwould put him in this group:

3 Times QBs in this group got to a SB
01. Deshaun Watson 21.9%
02. Dak Prescott 21.1%
03. Matt Stafford 19.3%
04. Daniel Jones 18.3%
05. Kyler Murray 18.1%

But that's not the case.

I'm not missing the point. Dallas has not shown they will structure the cap hit that way. Period. I openly and clearly agree that if you got his cap hit under 10% you could absolutely build a SB team around him. That's the entire argument I have made.

Only time will tell. Part of why paying him $60M/year is assumed to put him in the >15% group is because paying him $40M AAV HAS HIM IN THAT GROUP RIGHT NOW. Because Dallas seems to operate on a cash budget that will not allow them to play the salary cap effectively.

 

[Ray_T]

Imagine you have been at your job for 9 years, you are very efficient at your job. Won some minor awards even and have proven to be a leader and a winner. And then your company hires a new kid and within a few years you hear he/she/they already got a raise and is now making 1.5x your salary. Has no real proven track record, or leadership. Their team is an average team. How does that make you feel? At this point are you willing to "bite the bullet for the company" and take a salary BELOW what you feel your market value is, knowing someone else inferior to you is getting paid more? Or do you hardline negotiate and threaten to go to a headhunter where you know you can get your fair salary bc your current company seems...cheap

dude, this happens in the NFL all the time.

when Romo was replaced With Dak he asked to be allowed to compete for the job. the answer jerry gave was, I cant do that because you'd win the job and we want to get younger. (and cheaper)
any vet who is replaced by a young guy has this happen to him.

bottom line: if the young guy is close in quality he wins the job because he is cheaper and hes young and can still improve.

Like it or not.....this is the nature of the business

 

[Ray_T]

Only time will tell. Part of why paying him $60M/year is assumed to put him in the >15% group is because ohim $40M AAV HAS HIM IN THAT GROUP RIGHT NOW. Because Dallas seems to operate on a cash budget that will not allow them to play the salary cap effectively.

once again, this is the way of the league. its been like this for a while now. its about getting the most value for your money. you cant just buy all the best vets. you actually need to have a mixture of old and young players. and when some players get too expensive to re sign, you trade them or draft their replacement. and if you sign too many bad contracts as a team you get punished and end up with a non competitive team.

 

[Terpman22]

Imagine you have been at your job for 9 years, you are very efficient at your job. Won some minor awards even and have proven to be a leader and a winner. And then your company hires a new kid and within a few years you hear he/she/they already got a raise and is now making 1.5x your salary. Has no real proven track record, or leadership. Their team is an average team. How does that make you feel? At this point are you willing to "bite the bullet for the company" and take a salary BELOW what you feel your market value is, knowing someone else inferior to you is getting paid more? Or do you hardline negotiate and threaten to go to a headhunter where you know you can get your fair salary bc your current company seems...cheap

dude, this happens in the NFL all the time.

when Romo was replaced With Dak he asked to be allowed to compete for the job. the answer jerry gave was, I cant do that because you'd win the job and we want to get younger. (and cheaper)
any vet who is replaced by a young guy has this happen to him.

bottom line: if the young guy is close in quality he wins the job because he is cheaper and hes young and can still improve.

Like it or not.....this is the nature of the business

I'd agree with you to a degree, but when it comes to the QB position, I don't think its so true. Romo was at the end of his career in like age 34 season IIRC. There are only so many good QBs that you can win and go to the playoff and hope to win it all each year. Like 10-12 guys tops. I don't see the QB position to start turning into a "4 years for the rookie or we draft another guy b/c he'll be cheaper and we can spend more money on the roster" type of situation say like RB might be now. If you get a guy that is good/good enough to win with, its better to pay him than chance "we can just replace him with a young guy" which is where the whole "win on a rookie contract" thing to me is flawed logic, bc say you DO win in the first 4 years of a QB's career - he still has 8-12 more years to play in this league - are teams just throwing their hands up "well we can't win again b/c we have to pay him?"

no, they won't. They will, if the franchise is smart/savvy, sign the guy to an extension with some creativity that allows them to also sign other players to remain competitive. This is where the rubber meets the road with the Cowboys b/c they seem to *not* have any sort of contract creativity, unless you call waiting until all the other players in the league sign extensions first before you extend your own players at those positions to *now* higher contracts bc you waited too long and call that *Creative*

 

[Ray_T]

Imagine you have been at your job for 9 years, you are very efficient at your job. Won some minor awards even and have proven to be a leader and a winner. And then your company hires a new kid and within a few years you hear he/she/they already got a raise and is now making 1.5x your salary. Has no real proven track record, or leadership. Their team is an average team. How does that make you feel? At this point are you willing to "bite the bullet for the company" and take a salary BELOW what you feel your market value is, knowing someone else inferior to you is getting paid more? Or do you hardline negotiate and threaten to go to a headhunter where you know you can get your fair salary bc your current company seems...cheap

dude, this happens in the NFL all the time.

when Romo was replaced With Dak he asked to be allowed to compete for the job. the answer jerry gave was, I cant do that because you'd win the job and we want to get younger. (and cheaper)
any vet who is replaced by a young guy has this happen to him.

bottom line: if the young guy is close in quality he wins the job because he is cheaper and hes young and can still improve.

Like it or not.....this is the nature of the business

I'd agree with you to a degree, but when it comes to the QB position, I don't think its so true. Romo was at the end of his career in like age 34 season IIRC. There are only so many good QBs that you can win and go to the playoff and hope to win it all each year. Like 10-12 guys tops. I don't see the QB position to start turning into a "4 years for the rookie or we draft another guy b/c he'll be cheaper and we can spend more money on the roster" type of situation say like RB might be now. If you get a guy that is good/good enough to win with, its better to pay him than chance "we can just replace him with a young guy" which is where the whole "win on a rookie contract" thing to me is flawed logic, bc say you DO win in the first 4 years of a QB's career - he still has 8-12 more years to play in this league - are teams just throwing their hands up "well we can't win again b/c we have to pay him?"

no, they won't. They will, if the franchise is smart/savvy, sign the guy to an extension with some creativity that allows them to also sign other players to remain competitive. This is where the rubber meets the road with the Cowboys b/c they seem to *not* have any sort of contract creativity, unless you call waiting until all the other players in the league sign extensions first before you extend your own players at those positions to *now* higher contracts bc you waited too long and call that *Creative*

san Fran did it with JimmyG. they were a playoff team.

that said. Dallas does not appear to have a QB waiting in the wings. so I dont see an easy way for them to do this.
If they somehow manage to miss the playoffs, that might be the time. enough teams have drafted QB in round 1 this year that there may be a limited number of teams looking at drafting a QB next year.
but to justify that move the team needs to miss the playoffs. To be honest, I think the Dallas D when fully healthy is too good to let that happen even Dak got hurt and they had to run with the backup. so I'm gonna go on record as saying this wont happen unless Dak is asking way too much and they have to franchise him. and given his age, that may be the way to go here. I dont know if Dallas has the appetite for a long term deal with a QB. and the new normal is to guarantee a high percentage of the contract. Thats fine if its a 3 or 4 year deal but I dont think thats going to be the ask from Dak. hes gonna want a longer term contract and Jerry may balk at it. the right move likely is to let the contract expire and then franchise him. after that I guess it depends on where the team is at.... but at this point I dont know that there is any benefit to signing another deal.

 

[massraider]

Good but not great QBs seeking 2nd and 3rd contracts seem to be headaches for franchises. Usually good enough to routinely reset the market, thereby making it more difficult to retain/recruit other talent, and usually not good enough to lead their team to a Super Bowl.

Teams seem to be great with it.

 

[Terpman22]

Imagine you have been at your job for 9 years, you are very efficient at your job. Won some minor awards even and have proven to be a leader and a winner. And then your company hires a new kid and within a few years you hear he/she/they already got a raise and is now making 1.5x your salary. Has no real proven track record, or leadership. Their team is an average team. How does that make you feel? At this point are you willing to "bite the bullet for the company" and take a salary BELOW what you feel your market value is, knowing someone else inferior to you is getting paid more? Or do you hardline negotiate and threaten to go to a headhunter where you know you can get your fair salary bc your current company seems...cheap

dude, this happens in the NFL all the time.

when Romo was replaced With Dak he asked to be allowed to compete for the job. the answer jerry gave was, I cant do that because you'd win the job and we want to get younger. (and cheaper)
any vet who is replaced by a young guy has this happen to him.

bottom line: if the young guy is close in quality he wins the job because he is cheaper and hes young and can still improve.

Like it or not.....this is the nature of the business

I'd agree with you to a degree, but when it comes to the QB position, I don't think its so true. Romo was at the end of his career in like age 34 season IIRC. There are only so many good QBs that you can win and go to the playoff and hope to win it all each year. Like 10-12 guys tops. I don't see the QB position to start turning into a "4 years for the rookie or we draft another guy b/c he'll be cheaper and we can spend more money on the roster" type of situation say like RB might be now. If you get a guy that is good/good enough to win with, its better to pay him than chance "we can just replace him with a young guy" which is where the whole "win on a rookie contract" thing to me is flawed logic, bc say you DO win in the first 4 years of a QB's career - he still has 8-12 more years to play in this league - are teams just throwing their hands up "well we can't win again b/c we have to pay him?"

no, they won't. They will, if the franchise is smart/savvy, sign the guy to an extension with some creativity that allows them to also sign other players to remain competitive. This is where the rubber meets the road with the Cowboys b/c they seem to *not* have any sort of contract creativity, unless you call waiting until all the other players in the league sign extensions first before you extend your own players at those positions to *now* higher contracts bc you waited too long and call that *Creative*

san Fran did it with JimmyG. they were a playoff team.

that said. Dallas does not appear to have a QB waiting in the wings. so I dont see an easy way for them to do this.
If they somehow manage to miss the playoffs, that might be the time. enough teams have drafted QB in round 1 this year that there may be a limited number of teams looking at drafting a QB next year.
but to justify that move the team needs to miss the playoffs. To be honest, I think the Dallas D when fully healthy is too good to let that happen even Dak got hurt and they had to run with the backup. so I'm gonna go on record as saying this wont happen unless Dak is asking way too much and they have to franchise him. and given his age, that may be the way to go here. I dont know if Dallas has the appetite for a long term deal with a QB. and the new normal is to guarantee a high percentage of the contract. Thats fine if its a 3 or 4 year deal but I dont think thats going to be the ask from Dak. hes gonna want a longer term contract and Jerry may balk at it. the right move likely is to let the contract expire and then franchise him. after that I guess it depends on where the team is at.... but at this point I dont know that there is any benefit to signing another deal.

They can't franchise him. Namely b/c Jerry didn't treat him well enough the first go round with contract extension talk. You never see a guy forced to play his rookie contract without an extension coupled with franchise tagging him the year after instead of giving an extension. This is why Kirk Cousins left WAS, and look how long it took them to get another QB.

 

[Ray_T]

Imagine you have been at your job for 9 years, you are very efficient at your job. Won some minor awards even and have proven to be a leader and a winner. And then your company hires a new kid and within a few years you hear he/she/they already got a raise and is now making 1.5x your salary. Has no real proven track record, or leadership. Their team is an average team. How does that make you feel? At this point are you willing to "bite the bullet for the company" and take a salary BELOW what you feel your market value is, knowing someone else inferior to you is getting paid more? Or do you hardline negotiate and threaten to go to a headhunter where you know you can get your fair salary bc your current company seems...cheap

dude, this happens in the NFL all the time.

when Romo was replaced With Dak he asked to be allowed to compete for the job. the answer jerry gave was, I cant do that because you'd win the job and we want to get younger. (and cheaper)
any vet who is replaced by a young guy has this happen to him.

bottom line: if the young guy is close in quality he wins the job because he is cheaper and hes young and can still improve.

Like it or not.....this is the nature of the business

I'd agree with you to a degree, but when it comes to the QB position, I don't think its so true. Romo was at the end of his career in like age 34 season IIRC. There are only so many good QBs that you can win and go to the playoff and hope to win it all each year. Like 10-12 guys tops. I don't see the QB position to start turning into a "4 years for the rookie or we draft another guy b/c he'll be cheaper and we can spend more money on the roster" type of situation say like RB might be now. If you get a guy that is good/good enough to win with, its better to pay him than chance "we can just replace him with a young guy" which is where the whole "win on a rookie contract" thing to me is flawed logic, bc say you DO win in the first 4 years of a QB's career - he still has 8-12 more years to play in this league - are teams just throwing their hands up "well we can't win again b/c we have to pay him?"

no, they won't. They will, if the franchise is smart/savvy, sign the guy to an extension with some creativity that allows them to also sign other players to remain competitive. This is where the rubber meets the road with the Cowboys b/c they seem to *not* have any sort of contract creativity, unless you call waiting until all the other players in the league sign extensions first before you extend your own players at those positions to *now* higher contracts bc you waited too long and call that *Creative*

san Fran did it with JimmyG. they were a playoff team.

that said. Dallas does not appear to have a QB waiting in the wings. so I dont see an easy way for them to do this.
If they somehow manage to miss the playoffs, that might be the time. enough teams have drafted QB in round 1 this year that there may be a limited number of teams looking at drafting a QB next year.
but to justify that move the team needs to miss the playoffs. To be honest, I think the Dallas D when fully healthy is too good to let that happen even Dak got hurt and they had to run with the backup. so I'm gonna go on record as saying this wont happen unless Dak is asking way too much and they have to franchise him. and given his age, that may be the way to go here. I dont know if Dallas has the appetite for a long term deal with a QB. and the new normal is to guarantee a high percentage of the contract. Thats fine if its a 3 or 4 year deal but I dont think thats going to be the ask from Dak. hes gonna want a longer term contract and Jerry may balk at it. the right move likely is to let the contract expire and then franchise him. after that I guess it depends on where the team is at.... but at this point I dont know that there is any benefit to signing another deal.

They can't franchise him. Namely b/c Jerry didn't treat him well enough the first go round with contract extension talk. You never see a guy forced to play his rookie contract without an extension coupled with franchise tagging him the year after instead of giving an extension. This is why Kirk Cousins left WAS, and look how long it took them to get another QB.

yeah, but the organization as a whole was a bit of a train wreck. I dont know that I'd compare the Cowboys to THAT. Say what you will about Jerry and his meddling but that organization is better run by a country mile and it shows.

 

[Terpman22]

Imagine you have been at your job for 9 years, you are very efficient at your job. Won some minor awards even and have proven to be a leader and a winner. And then your company hires a new kid and within a few years you hear he/she/they already got a raise and is now making 1.5x your salary. Has no real proven track record, or leadership. Their team is an average team. How does that make you feel? At this point are you willing to "bite the bullet for the company" and take a salary BELOW what you feel your market value is, knowing someone else inferior to you is getting paid more? Or do you hardline negotiate and threaten to go to a headhunter where you know you can get your fair salary bc your current company seems...cheap

dude, this happens in the NFL all the time.

when Romo was replaced With Dak he asked to be allowed to compete for the job. the answer jerry gave was, I cant do that because you'd win the job and we want to get younger. (and cheaper)
any vet who is replaced by a young guy has this happen to him.

bottom line: if the young guy is close in quality he wins the job because he is cheaper and hes young and can still improve.

Like it or not.....this is the nature of the business

I'd agree with you to a degree, but when it comes to the QB position, I don't think its so true. Romo was at the end of his career in like age 34 season IIRC. There are only so many good QBs that you can win and go to the playoff and hope to win it all each year. Like 10-12 guys tops. I don't see the QB position to start turning into a "4 years for the rookie or we draft another guy b/c he'll be cheaper and we can spend more money on the roster" type of situation say like RB might be now. If you get a guy that is good/good enough to win with, its better to pay him than chance "we can just replace him with a young guy" which is where the whole "win on a rookie contract" thing to me is flawed logic, bc say you DO win in the first 4 years of a QB's career - he still has 8-12 more years to play in this league - are teams just throwing their hands up "well we can't win again b/c we have to pay him?"

no, they won't. They will, if the franchise is smart/savvy, sign the guy to an extension with some creativity that allows them to also sign other players to remain competitive. This is where the rubber meets the road with the Cowboys b/c they seem to *not* have any sort of contract creativity, unless you call waiting until all the other players in the league sign extensions first before you extend your own players at those positions to *now* higher contracts bc you waited too long and call that *Creative*

san Fran did it with JimmyG. they were a playoff team.

that said. Dallas does not appear to have a QB waiting in the wings. so I dont see an easy way for them to do this.
If they somehow manage to miss the playoffs, that might be the time. enough teams have drafted QB in round 1 this year that there may be a limited number of teams looking at drafting a QB next year.
but to justify that move the team needs to miss the playoffs. To be honest, I think the Dallas D when fully healthy is too good to let that happen even Dak got hurt and they had to run with the backup. so I'm gonna go on record as saying this wont happen unless Dak is asking way too much and they have to franchise him. and given his age, that may be the way to go here. I dont know if Dallas has the appetite for a long term deal with a QB. and the new normal is to guarantee a high percentage of the contract. Thats fine if its a 3 or 4 year deal but I dont think thats going to be the ask from Dak. hes gonna want a longer term contract and Jerry may balk at it. the right move likely is to let the contract expire and then franchise him. after that I guess it depends on where the team is at.... but at this point I dont know that there is any benefit to signing another deal.

They can't franchise him. Namely b/c Jerry didn't treat him well enough the first go round with contract extension talk. You never see a guy forced to play his rookie contract without an extension coupled with franchise tagging him the year after instead of giving an extension. This is why Kirk Cousins left WAS, and look how long it took them to get another QB.

yeah, but the organization as a whole was a bit of a train wreck. I dont know that I'd compare the Cowboys to THAT. Say what you will about Jerry and his meddling but that organization is better run by a country mile and it shows.

WAS has a new owner, to the rest of us NFC East fans' dismay. They are already making better moves. I can say Dallas at least drafts well. How its actually "ran" I dunno. Dalton Schultz seemed to think it wasn't the best thing once he got to Houston.

 

[Ray_T]

Imagine you have been at your job for 9 years, you are very efficient at your job. Won some minor awards even and have proven to be a leader and a winner. And then your company hires a new kid and within a few years you hear he/she/they already got a raise and is now making 1.5x your salary. Has no real proven track record, or leadership. Their team is an average team. How does that make you feel? At this point are you willing to "bite the bullet for the company" and take a salary BELOW what you feel your market value is, knowing someone else inferior to you is getting paid more? Or do you hardline negotiate and threaten to go to a headhunter where you know you can get your fair salary bc your current company seems...cheap

dude, this happens in the NFL all the time.

when Romo was replaced With Dak he asked to be allowed to compete for the job. the answer jerry gave was, I cant do that because you'd win the job and we want to get younger. (and cheaper)
any vet who is replaced by a young guy has this happen to him.

bottom line: if the young guy is close in quality he wins the job because he is cheaper and hes young and can still improve.

Like it or not.....this is the nature of the business

I'd agree with you to a degree, but when it comes to the QB position, I don't think its so true. Romo was at the end of his career in like age 34 season IIRC. There are only so many good QBs that you can win and go to the playoff and hope to win it all each year. Like 10-12 guys tops. I don't see the QB position to start turning into a "4 years for the rookie or we draft another guy b/c he'll be cheaper and we can spend more money on the roster" type of situation say like RB might be now. If you get a guy that is good/good enough to win with, its better to pay him than chance "we can just replace him with a young guy" which is where the whole "win on a rookie contract" thing to me is flawed logic, bc say you DO win in the first 4 years of a QB's career - he still has 8-12 more years to play in this league - are teams just throwing their hands up "well we can't win again b/c we have to pay him?"

no, they won't. They will, if the franchise is smart/savvy, sign the guy to an extension with some creativity that allows them to also sign other players to remain competitive. This is where the rubber meets the road with the Cowboys b/c they seem to *not* have any sort of contract creativity, unless you call waiting until all the other players in the league sign extensions first before you extend your own players at those positions to *now* higher contracts bc you waited too long and call that *Creative*

san Fran did it with JimmyG. they were a playoff team.

that said. Dallas does not appear to have a QB waiting in the wings. so I dont see an easy way for them to do this.
If they somehow manage to miss the playoffs, that might be the time. enough teams have drafted QB in round 1 this year that there may be a limited number of teams looking at drafting a QB next year.
but to justify that move the team needs to miss the playoffs. To be honest, I think the Dallas D when fully healthy is too good to let that happen even Dak got hurt and they had to run with the backup. so I'm gonna go on record as saying this wont happen unless Dak is asking way too much and they have to franchise him. and given his age, that may be the way to go here. I dont know if Dallas has the appetite for a long term deal with a QB. and the new normal is to guarantee a high percentage of the contract. Thats fine if its a 3 or 4 year deal but I dont think thats going to be the ask from Dak. hes gonna want a longer term contract and Jerry may balk at it. the right move likely is to let the contract expire and then franchise him. after that I guess it depends on where the team is at.... but at this point I dont know that there is any benefit to signing another deal.

They can't franchise him. Namely b/c Jerry didn't treat him well enough the first go round with contract extension talk. You never see a guy forced to play his rookie contract without an extension coupled with franchise tagging him the year after instead of giving an extension. This is why Kirk Cousins left WAS, and look how long it took them to get another QB.

yeah, but the organization as a whole was a bit of a train wreck. I dont know that I'd compare the Cowboys to THAT. Say what you will about Jerry and his meddling but that organization is better run by a country mile and it shows.

WAS has a new owner, to the rest of us NFC East fans' dismay. They are already making better moves. I can say Dallas at least drafts well. How its actually "ran" I dunno. Dalton Schultz seemed to think it wasn't the best thing once he got to Houston.

yeah. I'm speaking with respect to the situation that was pointed out. but yeah, I do think Dallas is a reasonably well run organization despite Jerry's interference (which isnt a plus)